Hi, 1/ I today refused to perform a re-licensing of a .cpp file being renamed to .qdoc.¹ QUIP-18² has no provisions for files transitioning between what QUIP-18 calls file "classifications"³, even if they have different required license specifiers.
Can someone please clarify the process here? 2/ In the same vein, it seems to me to be illogical to require to have a class-only .qdoc file have a different license from the equivalent .cpp file. These files may change from .cpp to .qdoc back back several times, depending on whether there is some C++ code in the file or not (doesn't have to be the implementation of a member function, could just be a static_assert() that we don't want to waste CPU cycles on by including it in the header). Should be make a distinction between "pure" .qdoc files and those that are essentially .cpp files that just lack (C++) content? 3/ And, finally, shouldn't .cpp files that contain qdoc comment blocks contain the "right" license for documentation, as it's different from code? Then a rename would also not require a re-licensing. ¹ https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/612565 ² https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/18 ³ https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/18#classification-of-files Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@qt.io> (he/his) Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company Erich-Thilo-Str. 10 12489 Berlin, Germany www.qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
