Open Stack

I'm genuinely curious why your first preference is for complete copyright headers after it's been determined they're not needed to preserve copyright. Can you expound on that? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting markwash's statements.

Brian


On May 17, 2013, at 8:57 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 3) what we have now (incomplete, inaccurate, out of date)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