Browse Source

Add copyright/patent issues to possible NACK reasons

Adding in response to a Slack discussion where someone was unclear on the fact
that a NACK may be justified if code can't be accepted due to copyright/patent
issues.  For example, it would be reasonable and prudent to NACK a contribution
of AGPL-licensed consensus code on the basis that the license terms are
incompatible with the MIT license used by the rest of the codebase.
pull/1/head
Peter Todd 6 years ago
parent
commit
36f60a5d5b
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 6399011044E8AFB2
  1. 4
      CONTRIBUTING.md

4
CONTRIBUTING.md

@ -178,7 +178,9 @@ language is used within pull-request comments: @@ -178,7 +178,9 @@ language is used within pull-request comments:
- ACK means "I have tested the code and I agree it should be merged";
- NACK means "I disagree this should be merged", and must be accompanied by
sound technical justification. NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded;
sound technical justification (or in certain cases of copyright/patent/licensing
issues, legal justification). NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be
disregarded;
- utACK means "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks
OK, I agree it can be merged";
- Concept ACK means "I agree in the general principle of this pull request";

Loading…
Cancel
Save