On 20 November 2018 at 19:30, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 20/11/18 16:47, Peter Maydell wrote: >> We don't yet use SPDX headers. (They're just a different and >> shorter way to write the license statement.) > > > Does that mean we can use them, or you rather prefer we don't? > > While they are machine parseable, I find them easier to understand than the > big chunk of legal text that sometime are not correctly written.
It means that I'm not going to absolutely insist on dropping the line if somebody submits a patch with an SPDX tag, but I probably will mention that we don't use SPDX tags, and definitely I'm not going to ask for them. Overall I don't think there's much point in having them added to one or two files randomly. If we want them then we should consistently require them as policy. But that is work, and so I think we should not do that until/unless somebody (probably a corporate somebody) steps forward to make the argument for "this is why we should have them, we as a contributor to the project think they are worthwhile and a useful feature for us, and we will make the effort to add them, review that they are correct, update checkpatch to insist on tags for new files, etc". In other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"; nobody is yet complaining that our current setup is broken. thanks -- PMM
