Summary:
This commit doesn't change license of any file. It just makes the license implicit (inherited from LICENSE file in the root directory).
We are removing the headers for these reasons:
- It wastes space in editors, less code is visible in editor upon opening a file.
- It brings noise to diff of the first change of any file every year.
- It confuses Git file copy detection when creating small files.
- We don't have an explicit license header in other files (JS, CSS, images, documentation).
- Using license header in every file is not obligatory: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new.
This change is approved by Alma Chao (Lead Open Source and IP Counsel at Facebook).
Test Plan: Verified that the license survived only in unit tests and LICENSE file.
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan, edward
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin, davidrecordon
Maniphest Tasks: T2035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3881
Summary: Mechanical changes from D2588. No "Class.php" moves yet because they aren't necessary for libraries to function.
Test Plan: See D2588.
Reviewers: vrana, btrahan, jungejason
Reviewed By: vrana
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1103
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D2589
Summary:
This should support conservative rewrite policies in git fairly well, under an
assumed workflow of:
- Develop in local branches, never rewrite history.
- Commit with "-m" or by typing a brief, non-template commit message
describing the checkpoint.
- Provide rich information in the web console (reviewers, etc.)
- Finalize with "git checkout master && arc merge branch && git push" or some
flavor thereof.
This supports Mercurial somewhat. The major problem is that "hg merge" fails if
the local is a fastforward of the remote, at which point there's nowhere we can
throw the commit message. Oh well. Just push it and we'll do our best to link
them up based on local commit info.
I am increasingly forming an opinion that Mercurial is "saftey-scissors git".
But also maybe I have no clue what I'm doing. I just don't understand why anyone
would think it's a good idea to have a trunk consisting of ~50% known-broken
revisions, random checkpoint parts, whitespace changes, typo fixes, etc. If you
use git with branching you can avoid this by making a trunk out of merges or
with rebase/amend, but there seems to be no way to have "one commit = one idea"
in any real sense in Mercurial.
Test Plan: Execute "arc merge" in git and mercurial.
Reviewers: fratrik, Makinde, aran, jungejason, tuomaspelkonen
Reviewed By: Makinde
CC: aran, epriestley, Makinde
Differential Revision: 860
