Hello IF,
While working on T343856 , we noticed a CI failure for missing SPDX headers on allowlist.txt .
Per IRC conversation with @jhathaway , opening this ticket for your team to decide whether or not to skip SPDX enforcement on text files. Note that this is not a blocker for our project, so no urgency is needed.
| Subject | Repo | Branch | Lines +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| spdx.rb: Skip SPDX enforcement of txt files | operations/puppet | production | +1 -1 |
Change 949112 had a related patch set uploaded (by Bking; author: Bking):
[operations/puppet@production] spdx.rb: Skip SPDX enforcement of txt files
ill leave this open for a bit before sending a CR but i dont see an issue (cc @MoritzMuehlenhoff)
No strong opinion here; if applied for user-written documentation it can be a little irritating, OTOH it avoids doubt about whether one e.g. can just reuse the docs elsewhere.
In the task which triggered it, the file isn't documentation, though, but seems to contain a list of entries for an allow list, so one other option would be to define that such data files are e.g. maintained under foo.data and that such .data files get exempted from the SPDX check? But I'm also fine with just omitted .txt in general.
Removing data platform SRE, as the conversation is continuing without direct involvement from us.
no strong opinion from me either, txt files are such a wild west format that I feel like we will hit this issue with other ones, on the other hand standardizing on .data seems reasonable as well. @bking would using .data be difficult in this specific case?
No, using .data is totally fine with us. Let us know if y'all add that filter. In the meantime, we added the filename to IGNORE_FILE as you suggested.
Change 949112 merged by Bking:
[operations/puppet@production] spdx.rb: Skip SPDX enforcement of txt files