- Issue created by @drumm
- ๐บ๐ธUnited States hestenet Portland, OR ๐บ๐ธ
xjm โ credited hestenet โ .
- ๐บ๐ธUnited States xjm
@hestenet, @catch, @drumm, and I discussed and agreed on this approach in Slack.
I have not reviewed the MR myself as yet.
- ๐บ๐ธUnited States xjm
Reviewed by diffing the added licenses against
core/LICENSE.txt
and confirming they were identical. These are the only two templates in core; I know because they talk to me every time I tag a release.Committed to 11.x. I did not backport it to 11.2.x because a change to the scaffolding is, technically, slightly disruptive. In this case, very slightly -- although from another perspective it's actually changing how
core-recommended
is officially licensed so that's not nothing. Leaving PTBP for now since @phenaproxima originally asked about this issue and I want to make sure it's not a contrib blocker of some kind that we should backport prior to 11.2.0. - ๐บ๐ธUnited States xjm
Per @phenaproxima:
We donโt โneed itโ, as such; on this point, we intend to follow coreโs lead.
So we just care that core chooses an approach. Itโs okay to not backport. - ๐บ๐ธUnited States phenaproxima Massachusetts
- ๐บ๐ธUnited States drumm NY, US
Confirmed that made it through to https://github.com/drupal/recommended-project & https://github.com/drupal/legacy-project
That also means we could add a README.md to each, so anyone who lands on the GitHub repo has some explanation.