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 <s...@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 >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
