From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:11:16 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver In-Reply-To: <20160425230531.GG29322@bill-the-cat> References: <1461099580-3866-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1461099580-3866-3-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20160424102046.4082710028B@atlas.denx.de> <571E733A.1060208@wwwdotorg.org> <20160425215253.8B4EA100386@atlas.denx.de> <20160425223739.GF29322@bill-the-cat> <571E9D96.4000306@wwwdotorg.org> <20160425230531.GG29322@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <571EA414.50705@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>> Dear Stephen Warren, >>>> >>>> In message <571E733A.1060208@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: >>> [snip] >>>>> Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the >>>>> NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence >>>>> why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently. >>>>> If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention >>>>> to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of >>>>> copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller. >>> >>> I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright >>> notices correct is important. Now, what do you mean by would be >>> smaller? >> >> Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with >> licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in >> copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct >> information into new files when creating new ones (often by just >> cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done >> that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination >> is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message, >> and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't >> include an edit to those messages since they'd already be >> up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that; >> it's just my gut instinct. > > Right, OK. So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to > files you haven't touched this year yet? Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.