Skip to content

Rust: document rustfmt macro preservation #205

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

teor2345
Copy link

@teor2345 teor2345 commented Apr 17, 2021

Some common std macros get reformatted. But by default rustfmt Is conservative and preserves macro formatting.

Some common std macros get reformatted. But by default
`rustfmt` Is conservative and preserves macro formatting.
@TheSven73
Copy link
Collaborator

Can contributions from pseudonymous contributors be accepted upstream?
See https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst, second-to-last paragraph.

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Apr 18, 2021

No, they cannot (in general).

@teor2345
Copy link
Author

I avoid using my legal name for a bunch of different reasons. It's not really worth changing that to get a 2 line clarification into a document.

However, I'm happy to disclaim all copyright in these changes (as a trivial change) if that helps.

Or I could license them under GPL v2 or BSD, so someone else can sign them off under Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1, clause (b):

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

Or you could just close this PR 😞

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Apr 23, 2021

IIRC there have been some exceptions in the past in rare cases when the individual is personally known by a high-level maintainer but wishes to remain anonymous for some reason.

I have asked if one of the two solutions you propose would be enough -- let's see.

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Apr 24, 2021

They told me we need to reject it, sorry.

The solutions above are not enough, even if the statements are public, because we would not know who is behind them.

@ojeda ojeda closed this Apr 24, 2021
@wcampbell0x2a wcampbell0x2a mentioned this pull request May 2, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants