[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification

Ximin Luo wrote:

> I've split up my previous patch into more manageable chunks, and added
> extra explanations in the commit messages.

Thanks.  I'm used to getting patch series in the mail, but I can

| d6892294 - strip trailing whitespace


| 4b752126 - change tri-license example to be the more common "MPL-1.1
|          or GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+"

With that patch, the example doesn't follow the spec any more because
short names used in a "Files:" stanza (GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+) without
license text have no corresponding "License:" stanza.  That's a
regression, so nack.

| 5fe35fbe - S1: Define the synopsis more formally; "license
|          expression" will be defined in a later commit

I'm stopping here.  The advantage, from the point of view of a
reviewer like me, of splitting a patch into a series is that I can
start reading at the first patch and, without reading the later ones,
understand well enough to decide whether that first patch is
worthwhile and safe to apply to the package.  That way I don't have to
invest a huge time commitment to start making progress on
incorporating someone's changes.

That only works if the first patch, alone, is already a valid change,
and likewise for the first two patches, first three, etc.  Without
that property I'd rather just read one monolithic diff.

Is it possible to extract a less-controversial subset from your spec
that could be applied first?  That would make life easier for busy and
lazy folks like me, would create momentum for polishing and applying
the rest, and can be a good way to move to a consensus on the basic
idea without the distraction of other potential large, possibly
disruptive changes.

For example, I think the idea of a License-exception stanza is
uncontroversial and valuable.  Defining it might (or might not) bring
out the need to define the structure of license names more precisely,
which could in turn make it easier to later make the spec more
accurately model that licenses like "GPL-2 or GPL-3+" and "GPL-2+" are

Summary: This series is too much for me to think about at once!  My
feeble mind wants a smaller subset to bite off before it will be able
to swallow the whole set of changes.

Sorry for the fuss, and hope that helps.


Reply to: