[PATCH] D111723: first draft of a written policy around git repos

[Christian Kühnel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

kuhnel added a comment.

Thx everyone for the reviews, I updated the proposal accordingly.

@tonic 
Let me know if you want to see (parts of) this change moved to `DeveloperPolicy.rst`. 
My rationale was: Keep info we only need a handful of times per year out of `DeveloperPolicy`.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RepoPolicy.md:17-18
+  [llvm-project](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).
+* The repo contains a copy of the `LICENSE.TXT` from
+  [llvm-project](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).
+
----------------
kristof.beyls wrote:
> is the URL ending in CONTRIBUTING.md the right URL for LICENSE.TXT here?
> I guess that in special circumstances, there could be an exception for a repo to use a different license? E.g. it seems the existing https://github.com/llvm/bugzilla2gitlab and https://github.com/llvm/phabricator repos have different licenses?
> I do agree that we should require a LICENSE.TXT or alternative mechanism to clearly document the license covering the repo.
> is the URL ending in CONTRIBUTING.md the right URL for LICENSE.TXT here?

Thx, was a copy-and-paste error

> I guess that in special circumstances, there could be an exception for a repo to use a different license? E.g. it seems the existing https://github.com/llvm/bugzilla2gitlab and https://github.com/llvm/phabricator repos have different licenses?

Good point. I reworded to prefer the LLVM license but others are possible.



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D111723/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D111723