Open Stack

"Complete" copyright headers would produce a tremendous amount of noise, so
+1 for no copyright headers, if that's possible.

-Dolph


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/17/2013 08:16 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > I'm generally +1 on this, however it's going to be hard to get
> > organizations to agree to this while other orgs are listed in the source
> > files. From an IBM perspective, I've gotten agreement that we're cool
> > with this, as long as it's consistent. A patch work where some
> > copyrights are still listed, but others aren't allowed in, isn't going
> > to fly.
> >
> > My suggestion, is that we declare a flag day (like June 15), and that
> > someone needs to make an objection by then, otherwise this is new
> > policy. We create a new hacking rule that projects can use to enforce it.
> >
> > Then we have a couple of volunteers lined up to generate, and review
> > through mass removals from the code for each openstack/ project, plus
> > flipping on the hacking rule.
>
> +1 on the need for consistency.
>
> In order of my personal preference:
>
> 1) completely accurate and up-to-date copyright headers
> 2) no copyright headers (just the license)
> 3) what we have now (incomplete, inaccurate, out of date)
>
> I'm fine with 1 or 2 ... but big +1 on not 3.
>
> If we're going to #2, I definitely think we just need to remove all of
> it.  If we can't do that, we should just aim for #1 by doing a better
> job of documenting and educating on the expectations here, and having
> reviewers do a better job of checking for it.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130517/7a06556f/attachment.html>