On 02/04/2014 06:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The maint branches will often have out of date copyright headers
> so we must skip the 'sc_copyright_check' rule there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange
> ---
> cfg.mk | 11 +++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> Perhaps there
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The maint branches will often have out of date copyright headers
> > so we must skip the 'sc_copyright_check' rule there.
>
> Is that the only rule, or are there others? But yeah, th
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The maint branches will often have out of date copyright headers
> > so we must skip the 'sc_copyright_check' rule there.
>
> Is that the only rule, or are there others? But yeah, t
On 02/04/2014 06:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The maint branches will often have out of date copyright headers
> so we must skip the 'sc_copyright_check' rule there.
Is that the only rule, or are there others? But yeah, that's definitely
the most annoying one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P.
The maint branches will often have out of date copyright headers
so we must skip the 'sc_copyright_check' rule there.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange
---
cfg.mk | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
Perhaps there's a better way to detect -maint branches than the
logic I tried.
d
