-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 501
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
Multilicense flyway not consistent with JSON examples #8407
Comments
I prefer the first, since it feels cleaner. But I get the pros and cons of both, and don't feel strongly about it. |
I'm a little weirded out that there are two copies of the CC0 config:
If we're going to mess with the Flyway script anyway, I'm wondering if it's an opportunity to get down to a single source of truth, the JSON file. I know we discussed in tech hours how the CC0 change has to happen in Flyway but I don't think that's necessarily the case. For one thing, Flyway is relatively new to us. 😄 In the pre-Flyway days, it was pretty common to instruct people to use a combination of curl commands (loading JSON files) and manual SQL updates. So I imagine we could have something like this in our release notes:
And in the installer (setup-all.sh), instead of relying on a random Flyway script to add the CC0 license, we'd add:
Advantages:
2022-06-02 update: We update metadata blocks by reloading tsv files and describe this process in release notes. I don't think we have any plans to move this to Flyway. Reloading JSON files for licenses could be similar. |
The CC0 1.0 license json file is consistent with the other examples in using the title recommended by Creative Commons (including the version number) but this is inconsistent with the update provided by the flyway script (which was created early on). The URL (differing by a trailing slash), short description, and icon location also differ. The db upgrade should match the examples and the pattern for the other licenses.
There seem to be two options for implementing
@scolapasta /others - any preference? (I think I'm leaning towards 2, but will implement whatever).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: