Conversation

est31

This was referencedJun 26, 2017
Closed
Open
tomprince
tomprince reviewed Jun 26, 2017
View reviewed 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text/0000-license-rfcs.md Outdated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.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

@aturonaturon added the T-coreRelevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC.label Jun 26, 2017
@aturonaturon self-assigned this Jun 26, 2017
@aturon

@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

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.

@rfcbotrfcbot added the proposed-final-comment-periodCurrently awaiting signoff of all team members in order to enter the final comment period.label Jul 12, 2017
@aturon

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

@rfcbotrfcbot added final-comment-periodWill be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised.and removed proposed-final-comment-periodCurrently awaiting signoff of all team members in order to enter the final comment period.labels Jul 12, 2017
@mgattozzi

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

The final comment period is now complete.

@est31est31 mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2017
Open
7 tasks
@aturonaturon merged commit 1c07d02 into rust-lang:master Jul 24, 2017
@aturon

Huzzah! The RFC has been merged! Tracking issue.

This was referencedJul 25, 2017
Open
Closed
Closed
Closed
@est31est31 mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2017
Closed
24 tasks
@CentrilCentril added the A-metaProposals about how we make proposalslabel Nov 23, 2018
@rust-langrust-lang locked as spam and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 4, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on . Already have an account? Sign in.

@tomprince tomprince tomprince left review comments

@aturon aturon

A-metaProposals about how we make proposalsfinal-comment-periodWill be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised.T-coreRelevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC.
None yet
No milestone

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Does this repo need a LICENSE or COPYING file?