David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
This is more a warmup than anything else: I'm actually doing a quite
more involved rewrite of git-blame right now. But it's been a long
time since I sent patches for Git, so I'm starting out with something
reasonably uncontroversial.
Ping?
Now I might
David Kastrup wrote:
Now I might have sent at an unopportune time: blame.c is mostly
attributed to Junio who seems to have been a few days absent now.
I also have seen quite a few mails and patch submissions on the list go
basically unanswered in the last few days.
In the U.S., yesterday
David Kastrup wrote:
So my understanding is that when we are talking about _significant_
additions to builtin/blame.c (the current patches don't qualify as such
really) that
a) builtin/blame.c is licensed under GPLv2
b) significant contributions to it will not be relicensed under
different
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Now I might have sent at an unopportune time: blame.c is mostly
attributed to Junio who seems to have been a few days absent now.
I also have seen quite a few mails and patch submissions on the list go
basically unanswered in
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So my understanding is that when we are talking about _significant_
additions to builtin/blame.c (the current patches don't qualify as such
really) that
a) builtin/blame.c is licensed under GPLv2
b) significant contributions
David Kastrup wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Any idea how this could be made more clear? E.g., maybe we should
bite the bullet and add a line to all source files that don't already
state a license:
/*
* License: GPLv2. See COPYING for details.
*/
David Kastrup wrote:
The combination of the SubmittingPatches text with the file notices in
builtin/blame.c is not really painting a full picture of the situation.
BTW, thanks for bringing this up. It last came up at [1]. Perhaps we
can do better by adding a note to README or some similar
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Any idea how this could be made more clear? E.g., maybe we should
bite the bullet and add a line to all source files that don't already
state a license:
/*
* License:
David Kastrup wrote:
and contrib. The README file states
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public
License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses,
compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus
Torvalds with help of a
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So my understanding is that when we are talking about _significant_
additions to builtin/blame.c (the current patches don't qualify as such
really) that
a) builtin/blame.c is licensed under GPLv2
b) significant contributions
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
and contrib. The README file states
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public
License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses,
compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So my understanding is that when we are talking about _significant_
additions to builtin/blame.c (the current patches don't qualify as such
really) that
a) builtin/blame.c is licensed
This is more a warmup than anything else: I'm actually doing a quite
more involved rewrite of git-blame right now. But it's been a long
time since I sent patches for Git, so I'm starting out with something
reasonably uncontroversial. Patch 1 is a no-brainer: maintaining
reverse links is not
13 matches
Mail list logo
