svn2(rss|atom).py contrib-->tools

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

Since svn2(rss|atom).py seems to be getting hacked on by several full
committers, I think it meets the maintenance requirement to be promoted
out of contrib.


IIUC, it also needs to meet a licensing requirement.

Currently it has no stated licence at all.

The original author was "S. Ramaswamy <srsy70 gmail.com>", and all
subsequent changes have been minor, or from full committers or
contributors @collab.net.

Should we ask S. Ramaswamy if he's willing to allow it to fall under the
Subversion licence, and if so, promote it to tools?

Max.

Re: svn2(rss|atom).py contrib-->tools

[Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam <bh...@collab.net>]

> IIUC, it also needs to meet a licensing requirement.

In this context, couple of scripts under tools/ don't meet the licensing
requirement or they don't have the licensing terms included within those
scripts. So, either it is not necessary to meet a licensing requirement
or the licensing terms should be included in those scripts.

-- 
Regards,
Bhuvaneswaran

Re: svn2(rss|atom).py contrib-->tools

[Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Max Bowsher wrote:

> Since svn2(rss|atom).py seems to be getting hacked on by several full
> committers, I think it meets the maintenance requirement to be promoted
> out of contrib.
> 
> 
> IIUC, it also needs to meet a licensing requirement.
> 
> Currently it has no stated licence at all.
> 
> The original author was "S. Ramaswamy <srsy70 gmail.com>", and all
> subsequent changes have been minor, or from full committers or
> contributors @collab.net.
> 
> Should we ask S. Ramaswamy if he's willing to allow it to fall under the
> Subversion licence, and if so, promote it to tools?

Sounds fine to me, as the code is simple enough that it isn't much of
a maintenance burden.