On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:40:14AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:24:43AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:58:21AM +0200, Marcus Glocker wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:51:22AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > > > > > > Marcus Glocker wrote: > > > > > Me too. Would it be ok to merge utvfu.c and utvfu_ops.c by including > > > > > both Copyrights in this file? Should it be > > > > > > > > > > [Copyright 1] > > > > > [Code 1] > > > > > [Copyright 2] > > > > > [Code 2] > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > [Copyright 1] > > > > > [Copyright 2] > > > > > [Code 1] > > > > > [Code 2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Historically, the second has been popular, but that's also when the new > > > > code is > > > > mixed in with old. > > > > > > > > If it's entirely new code, I think the top option is better because it > > > > allows > > > > separation later. We have some files where all the [code 1] gets > > > > deleted, but > > > > the copyright remains, somewhat dubious. > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback Ted. I guess in this case we should go with > > > option > > > 1 then. > > > > > > Patrick, can you please merge utvfu_ops.c into utvfu.c in your new diff > > > this way? > > > > OK. Will send it out in a few. > > Here it is...
Thanks - Check cvs mails :-)
