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

[yyyy] [name of copyright owner] #117

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 28, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@edunham
Member

edunham commented Aug 28, 2015

No description provided.

@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

rust-highfive commented Aug 28, 2015

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

BurntSushi added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 28, 2015

Merge pull request #117 from edunham/patch-1
[yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

@BurntSushi BurntSushi merged commit 2b1b982 into rust-lang:master Aug 28, 2015

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@BurntSushi

This comment has been minimized.

Member

BurntSushi commented Aug 28, 2015

Thanks!

@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Member

alexcrichton commented Aug 28, 2015

This has actually been proposed before in rust-lang/rust multiple times almost, and this is actually an appending that's supposed to be filler text apparently?

@edunham

This comment has been minimized.

Member

edunham commented Aug 28, 2015

@alexcrichton You're right; I lost the section change in the other legal boilerplate. New PR incoming to nuke said boilerplate and move the line according to its instructions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment