[U-Boot] [PATCH 13/60] ARM: tegra: sort some board file include directives

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 02:44:24PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 12:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:18:06AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 04/25/2016 05:22 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>...
> >>>I know company lawyers come up with various policies and some are more
> >>>restrictive than others.  Anything about the exact guidelines you can
> >>>share would be appreciated.
> >>
> >>They're simple and I would assume quite standard:
> >>
> >>1) When creating a new file, add an NVIDIA copyright header.
> >>
> >>2) When performing a non-trival edit to an existing file, if it has
> >>an existing NVIDIA copyright header, update the data, and if not,
> >>add one.
> >>
> >>Guidance on "non-trivial" isn't given. I would take it to mean
> >>anything other than typos and whitespace fixes.
> >>
> >>Re-ordering your email slightly:
> >>>I want to echo my agreement on this point.  Re-ordering includes does
> >>>not rise to the level of adding copyright/author/etc lines.
> >>
> >>I can see your argument re: copyright headers in the individual
> >>files, although again I'd echo my previous comments re: a simple and
> >>unambiguous process being preferable.
> >
> >Here's where I hope I don't get everyone at NVIDIA that's doing Linux
> >Kernel or other F/OSS work in trouble.  Point #1 above is quite
> >understandable.  Point #2 is something I can see but has totally not
> >been done by the folks doing Linux Kernel work.
> 
> Admittedly compliance is spotty; the last thing someone wants to do
> when having completed a patch is think about all kinds of nit-picks
> like updating copyrights, checkpatch, testing, even compiling:-)
> 
> However, it's certainly not unheard of. Here are a few examples I
> was able to spot quickly:
> 
> NVIDIA:
> af6313d61a78 (Alex Courbot)
> 08acae34e8da (Paul Walsmley)
> 891846516317 (Thierry Reding)
> 783c8f4c8445 (Peter De Schrijver)
> 0ffdd4b61b13 (Stephen Warren)
> 
> Red Hat
> 1363074667a6 (Hans De Goede)
> 25462f7f5295 (Wei Huang)
> 54cea3f6681a (Milan Broz)
> 
> Texas Instruments
> 2f67864b6d5b (Andrew F. Davis)
> 0d6fa53fd805 (Andy Gross)
> 
> Denx
> 88eeb72ec4c1 (Stefan Roese)
> 
> Admittedly those don't look like refactoring changes, but it sounded
> to me like you were arguing completely against point (2) in my
> original email above. That's not reasonable. Arguing against (2) for
> simple refactoring could be.

I'm arguing in favour of what all of those commits did, extending
existing copyright notices.  I'm fine with that.  To be clear, in _this_
patch what I object to is adding the NVIDIA copyright line to
board/avionic-design/common/tamonten-ng.c and I am fine with extending
it on all of the board/nvidia/ files and now wondering you didn't add it
to board/toradex/.

> >The review on this patch series itself has indeed been derailed, which I
> >do not like either.  With respect to copyright on individual changes and
> >so forth, is this a concern you have, or a concern the lawyers at NVIDIA
> >have?
> 
> The lawyers have dictated the process which I should follow. I often
> forget, so I made sure that for such a large series I'd follow the
> process correctly this time. To be honest, I'm way beyond care about
> anything to do with copyright at this point; I'd rather just work on
> something where it wasn't an issue in any form at all.

Indeed :(

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160426/fb64faf8/attachment.sig>