On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote:
> On 21 October 2013 09:20, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hannes, > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Hannes Magnusson <bj...@php.net> wrote: > >> Commit: 2fe59d588033122352664c478700c7d088060d7f > >> Author: Hannes Magnusson <bj...@php.net> Mon, 21 Oct 2013 > 00:15:25 +0000 > >> Parents: 988ef2faccedb8a379b013a8b1d06b4de17a174a > >> Branches: old_auth > >> > >> Link: > http://git.php.net/?p=web/pecl.git;a=commitdiff;h=2fe59d588033122352664c478700c7d088060d7f > >> > >> Log: > >> Strongly recommend including a licesnse, but not require it > >> > > > > I do not have the time now to revert your unilateral change but will > > do later today or this week. We have made the changes you were asking, > > to help packages like MongoDB. > > > > Now I strongly suggest you to stop acting like a jerk only because you > > think you can do whatever fits for you. > > I really rather not want to get into that, but I actually do not see a > reason to be that offended, Pierre (as you usually are the one who > asks me to cool down). > > Chris just asked to relax that restriction until he can sort out the > things on his side, no need to yell at anyone yet. > > Cheers & gotta grab some more coffe on a monday morning ;) > > +1, and considering how little discussion was taking place before making the license file mandatory. On Oct 13 the license issue was brought up when discussing the new windows build integration for pecl(which I guess would be easy to miss if you aren't really interested or care about the windows builds), then the change was implemented the next day. I'm pretty sure that nobody is against having explicit license files for the pecl packages where the license mandates this, but I think that some grace period would have been nice, and those who are mentioned this shouldn't be shoot down. And calling other contributors (who didn't just revert the change, but put the effort to find the middle ground) jerk is never a good idea. Would be nice if everybody could just calm down and focus on the problem at hand. Would it be ok if this grace period is kept for the end of this year, then turning this back into an error? Maybe we could also talk with the pear guys about the posibility of adding the license rule to the pear-core package, as it would make it possible to have multiple license explicitly and also showing an error/warning when building a pecl package. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
