Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Sun, 06 Oct 2013 14:48:47 -0700 |
| |
On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:33 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:27:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph > > > > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the > > > > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again. > > [] > > > any objections to merging the patch in its current form? > > > > Your own suggestion that this be applied only to > > patches hasn't been implemented. > > Given Greg's comment that we want to eliminate the existing instances, I > wanted to make sure implementing that change still makes sense. > > I can easily enough make checkpatch emit an ERROR for patches and a WARN > or CHK for existing files, if that's the consensus.
Hi Josh
Most of the time, action is at least as useful as consensus.
If you do the runtime --file check, please use this form:
my $msg_type = \&WARN; $msg_type = \&CHK if ($file); &{$msg_type}("FSF_MESSAGE", etc...)
(that form matches the trigraph test)
Use whatever ERROR/WARN/CHK you think appropriate.
| |