RFC to put the RFCs repo under license terms#2044
Conversation
| [considered for merging]. | ||
|
|
||
| This puts a responsibility on anyone who is merging RFCs to check for a | ||
| license header. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be handled by a tool, rather than a person.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
rust-lang/rust has a tool for this, but the rfc process is highly manual, and the way PRs get merged is different as well. Introducing a tool only for this purpose seems a bit much imo. Maybe we can do this after the transition period is over, and we still see files without a header being proposed.
|
Team member @aturon has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams: No concerns currently listed. Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
|
Core team members: I've taken the liberty of checking off your review boxes given our discussion today, which will start a 10 day FCP period. If you have any issues with that, please leave a comment! |
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
|
This is excellent and definitely future proofs this repo going forward. Considering most Rust code is Apache-2.0/MIT I'm all for it :D |
|
The final comment period is now complete. |
|
Huzzah! The RFC has been merged! Tracking issue. |
Rendered
Fixes #1259