Open Stack

Sean, Julien,

Than really makes sense. I've seen cases when guys -1ed patches for not having the header
in empty files referring to that "...all source files..." phrase. That's why I think it's reasonable to
add your comments to the Hacking rules.

- Roman

On Nov 28, 2013, at 20:08 , Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> On 11/28/2013 01:01 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 28 2013, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote:
>> 
>>> The point of this email is _not_ to blame someone or to push my personal
>>> opinion to the folks who gave me the feedback. What I'm trying to do is to
>>> to bring more clarity to our hacking rules because, as I see, currently
>>> different folks interpret them differently.
>> 
>> Anyway, having headers in empty file sounds just dumb.
>> 
>> Maybe a mistake that has been transformed into a rule?
> 
> When we wrote the hacking rule for the license check basically we didn't
> want to overreach and cause a ton of work on projects to purge this. So
> basically any file < 10 lines, we don't enforce the Apache license
> header check. This allows __init__.py files to be either empty (which is
> what they should be), or have the header. It just doesn't check for
> trivially small files.
> 
> I'm totally in favor of going further and saying "empty files shouldn't
> have license headers, because their content of emptiness isn't
> copyrightable" [1]. That's just not how it's written today.
> 
> 	-Sean
> 
> 1. Philip Glass might disagree -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
> 
> -- 
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131128/f146f416/attachment.pgp>