From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30024 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2013 11:13:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 30011 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2013 11:13:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:12:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0OBCr9C031503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Jan 2013 06:12:53 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0OBCpsj016620; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 06:12:52 -0500 Message-ID: <51011733.8040700@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:13:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Tiago St?rmer Daitx , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix handling of #include files during prologue skipping References: <51004922.0VYgHGakDPQGcTqV%tdaitx@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5100858F.1020809@codesourcery.com> <1358997585.28026.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20130124062333.GA16749@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20130124062333.GA16749@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00587.txt.bz2 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