-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Upstream merge #217
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Upstream merge #217
Conversation
I left out most of the ones doing anything with the buildsystem as well since theres still ongoing efforts to bin it or at least get rid of conan so merging anything related to that would have been pointless |
for licensing reasons original authors should probably be kept |
would mentioning them in the commits be enough? or here in the pr? |
Well, the point is that they are in fact the copyright holders here with GPL. Best would probably be just keeping the authorship on the commits intact. |
GPL does not require attribution by default, but you can require it as a separate requirement, IIRC. |
I will be adding multiple patches from upstream into this patch. (As well as a general update to the gitignore.) |
gets repo synced with upstream again, not a lot going on besides some vanity things like the colorscheme change. a lot of the changes ended up being all related to their automatic updating. and refacturing stuff to new files for no good reason.
would be good to see if I missed anything or if this breaks anything, but I highly doubt it with these few things.
it was by choice that I didnt add the commits with
git am
in favor ofgit apply
. besides personal preference with the--reject
handling I'm also not sure if the audacity commitors would appreciate having their name tagged onto this repos commit history.maybe good to decide a standard way to go about these upstream merges, for now just went with the generated commit titles from the upstream patch script. they can always be squash merged away.