Re: [PATCH] Fix handling of #include files during prologue skipping

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 01/24/2013 06:23 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> I didn't include one since the header files in gdb.base that I looked at
>> the time didn't have it. I checked it again and noticed that from all 11
>> headers files in there only 1 has a copyright in it
>> (gdb.base/included.h).
>>
>> If a copyright is actually needed I will be happy to include one, so
>> please let me know your answer.
> 
> Yes please. My understanding of the FSF procedures is that every file
> which contains significant material should have a copyright header,
> and my stance on this is that we should include one in every file.

Yeah.  My opinion is that its just easier to not go through
the trouble of applying some sort of "is there enough significant
material in copyright terms to warrant a header" process.  Someone
can always come in later and add more lines to a file that was
originally small enough to not have a header, and just reading the
patch may, and usually doesn't show whether a header is already
present or not.  So instead of placing a burden on review of
ensuring that detail is taken care of, and so whether a new header
should be added to an existing file, because the file is now big
enough, I much prefer a policy of "always a copyright header from
the start, even if the file is too small to begin with".  It's more
"mechanical" that way.

> Your observation is also correct, and it needs to be fixed eventually.

-- 
Pedro Alves