Recent activity

Re: License checker misses "LICENSE-MIT" license 2 months ago

From Greg KH to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:18:55AM +0100, Moritz Poldrack wrote:
> On Mon Dec 4, 2023 at 10:51 AM CET, Vlad-Stefan Harbuz wrote:
> > On 2023-12-03 at 16:03-08:00, Dev Email wrote:
> > > Some of my projects are licensed under MIT and Apache-2.0 license. In 
> > > this case,
> > >
> > > I include "LICENSE-MIT" and "LICENSE-APACHE" file in my repository. However,
> > >
> > > sr.ht does not seem to detect them, as I see this message:
> > >
> > >
> > I think support for LICENSE-MIT and LICENSE-APACHE is unlikely to be
> > added, because this is too specific — would this entail adding
> > LICENSE-GPL and so on for every major license?

Re: Patchy, a mailing list bot - thoughts? 6 months ago

From Greg KH to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 06:09:28PM +0100, Rose Hudson wrote:
> Hi all,
> My friend and I moved our collaboration onto lists.sr.ht as a taster,
> and I've left with some strong opinions about the workflow, both good
> and bad :) I want to revel in the good ones, so I set about solving the
> things that drove us away, and I'm interested to know who shares these
> frustrations and what people think of my take on fixing them. The 
> project and its README are up at https://sr.ht/~roseh/patchy .
> The main idea is to give semantics to subject lines - contributors can 
> then see how many Reviews are open, and maintainers can instruct that a 
> patch be Applied, etc., via mails with a certain subject prefix. With 
> this in place, Patchy being the sole applier allows it to check 

Re: Workflow for how to apply patches and pull requests from mutt 1 year, 9 months ago

From Greg KH to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:56:08AM +0200, Rene Kita wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 07:19:12AM +0800, Beau Trepp wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I've always loved the concept of collaborating more using email, and
> > absolutely love https://git-send-email.io/. This seems like a great
> > workflow for sending patches.
> > 
> > For the other half as a maintainer, I have gotten a bit lost.
> > I would be able to review code in my email client and respond, but I'm
> > not sure how to then get the commits or patches out of git and then
> > apply them to my repository to 'merge' in.
> Here[1] is an interesting read from a kernel maintainer where he

Re: License chooser? 2 years ago

From Greg KH to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:24:02PM +0100, hellekin wrote:
> On 1/11/22 10:04 AM, Jiri Vlasak wrote:
> > 
> > You mean like https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/tool ?
> > 
> Yes, the REUSE (https://reuse.software) team put a lot of thought into
> licensing issues, notably that many repositories reusing code probably have
> more than one license to handle.
> It would be great that sr.ht supports the LICENSES/ directory instead of the
> mainstream LICENSE files used by Git.

It does support it from what I can tell, I have a number of repos that

Re: license file not found warning 2 years ago

From Greg KH to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:16:16PM +0200, Drew DeVault wrote:
> The matter of license naming has come up before. Right now, we support
> something like 10 formats. It has been decided that we will not continue
> to expand our matching code to support every possible naming convention
> humans can come up with, and instead now ask projects to change their
> approach to conform to one of the existing patterns.
> If your project has several licenses then I recommend merging them into
> one file with some prose which explains which license applies to what.

Nah, use the REUSE specification which puts all of the licenses into one
directory, LICENSES/, and then use proper SPDX lines at the top of each
file to refer to the proper license(s) that that file is released under.