Skip to content

Conversation

@mertdeg2
Copy link

LICENSE-MIT.txt creates conflicts with some tools, LICENSE seems to be more uniform throughout github.

Also, the license didn't match MIT license template in github, so i have update that little bit

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Mar 16, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #12 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master    #12   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage     100%   100%           
=====================================
  Files           1      1           
  Lines          70     70           
  Branches       25     25           
=====================================
  Hits           70     70

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 65d08d4...e6d8feb. Read the comment docs.

@mathiasbynens
Copy link
Owner

LICENSE-MIT.txt creates conflicts with some tools

Which tools?

Also, the license didn't match MIT license template in github, so i have update that little bit

GitHub seems to detect the current license just fine:

I’d rather not make such changes without understanding why.

@chriseppstein
Copy link
Contributor

Naming the file LICENSE is the convention, but tools should really read the "license" field in package.json which uses a standard syntax to describe the licenses of projects. Tools should then falling back to examining LICENSE* to handle projects that don't correctly specify it in the package.json file.
https://github.com/mathiasbynens/cssesc/blob/master/package.json#L19

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants