I have multiple objections to this being included as is: 1) Wrong license 2) No ooRexx copyright statement 3) We don't put change logs in commentary. Source control is what manages change logs. 4) We don't identify specific authors in any of our source files. Once contributed, it is community owned. 5) I have the same objection to the name. If this is going to be part of the project files, than it should not have the rgf_* name. 6) The scope of this goes beyond the need for the doc tooling. It would be better if the relevant bits are just moved into createClassHierarchy.rex
createClassHierarchy.rex also has problems 1-4. Rick On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM Erich Steinböck <erich.steinbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > ooRexx only accepts Common Public License v1.0 > You are providing your rgf_util2.rex under ASF 2.0 > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:14 PM Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> > wrote: > >> Hi Erich, >> >> On 22.03.2020 11:56, Erich Steinböck wrote: >> > I agree with Gil. Let's stay with our current coding/tagging style and >> the typographic conventions. >> I concur as well, see my follow-up to Gil's mail. >> > Also, rgf_util2.rex is unacceptable for inclusion in our svn. Please >> fix the copyright or remove >> > it from the svn, and please also do so for any other of your current or >> future commits. >> >> What is the problem (I really do not understand)? What constitutes a >> "fix"? >> >> ---rony >> >> _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
