-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 288
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
*: Collapse to a single note entry #566
Conversation
e1b407b
to
e690d0b
Compare
3.1 release? A lot of changes to take in the day of the release and the tools currently merges the notes. |
True, but a lot of these are fixing the And regardless of this PR, there's already a crazy amount of change going on right before a release that will apparently be a major version bump. Can we get an RC or something to give things a day or two to cool off? |
@jlovejoy If you're OK with the notes updates, I'm OK including in the release. I did read through the changes and it looks pretty straightforward. |
I'm not okay with removing this info full stop. would need individual review. |
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 03:14:50PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
I'm not okay with removing this info full stop. would need
individual review.
The wxWindows change was already in its own commit, so I've filed #577
with just that change. If/when that lands, I can proceed to file
single-license PRs for the GPL family.
|
The XSD suggests (buggily) that we only want a single <notes> element (more details on this in the previous commit). And the information contained in the <notes> sections I'm removing is redundant, because: * Licenses with a release date in their <notes> entry had that same release date in the license title. I don't see a need to include that release date as unstrucutured information in two places, and the license title is clearly the more important location. * Whether the license is only or or-later is covered explicitly in the long name and implicitly in the new deprecation notice (e.g. as added in 55b6fc4, Update comments to reflect the new GPL license ID's, 2017-12-23, spdx#552). Once we get explicit obsoleted-by markup [1], those deprecation notices will become machine readable. So I don't think we need to call out the versioning again in the notes. [1]: spdx#392
e690d0b
to
3eab18e
Compare
I've rebased this onto master now that #577 has landed the wxWindows change. I've also spun off the AGPL-3.0 change into a single-license PR with #597, in case folks want to continue with per-license review. I'll keep this branch up to date in case you want to merge all of these very similar changes in one go. |
ok, so let me confirm I'm getting this in it's current form: the PR now updates all the deprecated licenses that ended up with two tags - one that has the deprecated info and one that has the old/original "notes" - the PR simply removes the latter for all, so that all that will remain is the notes related to deprecation. right? |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:43:17PM -0800, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
… the PR now updates all the deprecated licenses that ended up with
two <notes> tags - one that has the deprecated info and one that has
the old/original "notes" - the PR simply removes the latter for all,
so that all that will remain is the notes related to
deprecation. right? and I agree - we should only have one notes tag
with all notes contained therein.
Yup.
I'm in favor of removing <notes> from other places as well, e.g. [1]
is redundant with [2]. But those are harder to grep for than doubled
<notes>, so I've left them alone for now.
[1]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/57941c7c5c0a1f8aae1293f60d5ab9bd2988b84b/src/GPL-3.0-or-later.xml#L31
[2]: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/57941c7c5c0a1f8aae1293f60d5ab9bd2988b84b/src/GPL-3.0-or-later.xml#L36
|
yeah, I'm really not in favor of removing notes that have been there all along (literally, in these cases since v1.0!!) and only was okay with it here as we ended up with two sets of notes and this leaves the more important one (about deprecation). |
The XSD schema is currently buggy on this point, but the plural element name (
<notes>
vs.<note>
) andmaxOccurs
in the XSD entry:suggest that we expect only a single note entry (see also discussion here). This PR brings us back to a single
<notes>
entry for our licenses, preparing us for #452, which fixes the XSD schema.The wxWindows change, I created paragraphs for the previously separate
<notes>
content.For the GPL-family changes, I dropped the release-date/version
<notes>
, because:Licenses with a release date in their
<notes>
entry had that same release date in the license title. I don't see a need to include that release date as unstrucutured information in two places, and the license title is clearly the more important location.Whether the license is only or or-later is covered explicitly in the long name and implicitly in the new deprecation notice (e.g. as added in Add remaining deprecated licenses. #552). Once we get explicit obsoleted-by markup (Add <obsoletedBy> to licenses and exceptions #392), those deprecation notices will become machine readable. So I don't think we need to call out the versioning again in the notes.