Skip to content

/rfcs

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

RFC to put the RFCs repo under license terms #2044

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jul 24, 2017

Conversation

Reviewers

@tomprince tomprince

Assignees

@aturon aturon

Labels
A-meta T-core final-comment-period
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
6 participants
@est31 @aturon @rfcbot @mgattozzi @tomprince @Centril
@est31
Copy link
Contributor

est31 commented Jun 26, 2017 •
edited

Rendered

Fixes #1259

@est31 est31 force-pushed the est31:master branch from 64156a9 to bf1ec46 Jun 26, 2017

@tomprince

tomprince reviewed Jun 26, 2017
View changes

text/0000-license-rfcs.md Outdated
[considered for merging].

This puts a responsibility on anyone who is merging RFCs to check for a
license header.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
@tomprince

tomprince Jun 26, 2017

Member

This should probably be handled by a tool, rather than a person.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
@est31

est31 Jun 26, 2017

Author Contributor

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.

@aturon aturon added the T-core label Jun 26, 2017

@aturon aturon self-assigned this Jun 26, 2017

@aturon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Jul 12, 2017

@est31 Thanks much for this RFC! We talked about it in the core team today, and everyone agrees we should take this step, and in the way you've described. As such:

@rfcbot fcp merge
@rfcbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

rfcbot commented Jul 12, 2017 •
edited by aturon

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.

@rfcbot rfcbot added the proposed-final-comment-period label Jul 12, 2017

@aturon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Jul 12, 2017

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!
@rfcbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

rfcbot commented Jul 12, 2017

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@rfcbot rfcbot added final-comment-period and removed proposed-final-comment-period labels Jul 12, 2017

@mgattozzi

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

mgattozzi commented Jul 13, 2017

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
@rfcbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

rfcbot commented Jul 22, 2017

The final comment period is now complete.

@aturon aturon merged commit 1c07d02 into rust-lang:master Jul 24, 2017

@aturon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Jul 24, 2017

Huzzah! The RFC has been merged! Tracking issue.

@Centril Centril added the A-meta label Nov 23, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.