[arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 01/15/18 at 12:56am, Eli Schwartz via arch-projects wrote:
> On 01/15/2018 12:07 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > From what I see, that's a minority position, but of course I run in
> > FSF circles, so my perception is a bit skewed.  :P
> > 
> > If that's the official position that the archweb team wants to take, I
> > won't argue.
> 
> I dunno what jelle/angvp/the gang would say, I do know that my personal
> opinion is markedly skewed. :p

I don't think we care largely care/cared. But this is probably something
we should resolve.

<huge snip>

> >> I'll be watching this list and the Pull Requests page on archweb's
> >> github with anticipation. ;)
> > 
> > Wait, archweb is on GitHub? :P
> > 
> > Is a GitHub PR the preferred method, or is the usual git-send-email to
> > this ML preferred?
> > 
> > (Though I have to be honest: this is on my TODO list, but fairly low
> > priority on it)
> 
> Arch Linux has a Github organization: https://github.com/archlinux
> 
> A few things are mirrored there, and a couple new projects have their
> primary home there.
> Archweb specifically is primarily developed there via pull requests.
> Unlike other Arch projects, it is the preferred workflow of archweb
> developers/contributors.
> Though I am sure git-send-email to this ML will still get through. :)

Yeah PR's are preferred, they get tested automatically too.

I'll respond on the other mail about the violating files :)

-- 
Jelle van der Waa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/attachments/20180115/7d8bec1e/attachment.asc>