Re: [PATCH 3/8] doc: test: Add docs and test for part_find

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2073 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Add some documentation and a test for this new command.
> >
> > Shouldn't this be two patches?
> 
> Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit,
> since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where
> are the docs and tests!
> 
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >   doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   doc/usage/index.rst         |   1 +
> > >   test/cmd/Makefile           |   1 +
> > >   test/cmd/part_find.c        |  42 +++++++++++++
> > >   4 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
> > >   create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
> > >   create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
> > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+:
> >
> > This is not a valid SPDX identifier.
> > Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html
> 
> I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't
> fully understand it:
> 
> The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there.
> In the source tree:
> 
> $ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l
> 13406
> $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l
> 1847
> 
> I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember.
> 
> But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw
> a warning?

As I've said before too, GPL-2.0+ is deprecated by SPDX and
GPL-2.0-or-later is the correct tag. But we aren't, sadly, right now a
best practices example for SPDX anyhow and so it's not a deal breaker to
use the old tag, just something that should be avoided.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]