Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam wrote:
> Any review comment on this?
If there isn't any comment in the next few days, I'll go ahead and file
an issue for it.
Also, please include [PATCH] in the subject line of any message which
contains a patch. It makes it easier to spot and helps ensure that
patches don't fall through the cracks.
> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:46 +0530, Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 14:27 -0700, Karl Fogel wrote:
>>> "Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> I noticed we have two identical Subversion license files
>>>> (www/license-1.html and www/project_license.html). I do not see any
>>>> difference between them except a pre-mature line wrap.
>>>> Would it be good to retain one file (www/project_license.html) and
>>>> remove the other from our repo? Yeah, we should also correct the link in
>>>> many programs / scripts and point it to correct license file.
>>> There are probably references out in the world to both URLs, so at
>>> least an redirection would have to be retained. (I'd prefer to see
>>> just license.html, personally :-) ).
>> Please find attached the patch for review. I did run the following
>> commands before creating this patch.
>> $ cd www
>> $ svn cp project_license.html license.html
>> After applying the patch, the status is as follows:
>> $ svn status
>> M license-1.html
>> A + license.html
>> M project_license.html
>> Patch by: me
>> Suggested by: me
>> Approved by: kfogel
>> * Automatically redirect the requests to license.html after 5 seconds.
>> Print the redirect message and provide a link to new license page.
>> * New license file. It is copied from project_license.html.
Received on Thu Sep 14 15:44:10 2006