On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Heinrich, > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Add some documentation and a test for this new command. > > > > Shouldn't this be two patches? > > Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit, > since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where > are the docs and tests! > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > > > doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > doc/usage/index.rst | 1 + > > > test/cmd/Makefile | 1 + > > > test/cmd/part_find.c | 42 +++++++++++++ > > > 4 files changed, 163 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst > > > create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst > > > @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+: > > > > This is not a valid SPDX identifier. > > Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html > > I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't > fully understand it: > > The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there. > In the source tree: > > $ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l > 13406 > $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l > 1847 > > I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember. > > But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw > a warning?
As I've said before too, GPL-2.0+ is deprecated by SPDX and GPL-2.0-or-later is the correct tag. But we aren't, sadly, right now a best practices example for SPDX anyhow and so it's not a deal breaker to use the old tag, just something that should be avoided. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
