[trimmed built-up cc-list] Roland Mainz writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > Roland Mainz writes: > > > Why ? At least the "CDDL/copyright update job" would be done (e.g. it > > > would save the work when someone crawls over the tree and does a general > > > CDDL license template update) ... > > > > It's just not done. Call it a style thing or a C-team thing if you > > like, but random changes in copyrights aren't normally acceptable. > > Ok... this is different to Mozilla.org where you get sometimes review > comments like "... ah, and when you do cleanup work update the MPL > license template - it's the old version...".
If you're making substantive changes in the same file, then updating the license template is expected. It's not expected that a given putback will contain license updates to files that do _not_ contain substantive changes to the code itself. Those would just be arbitrary changes. They're correct -- but just out of scope. That's the point here. Though I'll admit to being ignorant of how Mozilla.org does such things, I do know that other open source projects request that changes be similarly circumspect: that is, modify only the files that are part of the change under consideration. > > If someone really thinks that these files need to change right now, > > then please file a *separate* bug saying "update copyright on this > > handful of files" and include that in the putback comments. It > > doesn't seem like a worthwhile thing to do, but ... > > AFAIK it's only worthwhile when it can be done together with other > cleanup work... a seperate putback extra for a mass-license template > update work sounds weired... I wasn't suggesting that a separate putback would be needed, but that a separate CR would be needed. Fixing multiple problems or implementing multiple features in a single putback is permissible in ON. In fact, it's common. In general, what isn't permissible is fixing things that are well outside of the confines of the problems being addressed by the CRs cited. I admit that there are some fuzzy boundaries here. It's not too unusual to find a nit of a problem, and widen the scope of a CR to cover that problem as well. This doesn't look like one of those cases, though, as the "should we roto-till the license text?" question appears to be a broader issue, and not confined to these few makefiles. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
