This PR does more than it claims (e.g. it also adds a DESCRIPTION file)

sorry, should have said this depends (builds on) on #231 which adds the DESCRIPTION file

But the LICENSE can be added on it's own, no?

But the LICENSE can be added on it's own, no?

using {usethis} magic, it also adds a line to the DESCRIPTION file that specifies the license

But the LICENSE can be added on it's own, no?

using {usethis} magic, it also adds a line to the DESCRIPTION file that specifies the license

Yup, usethis is only really suited/ designed to be used in R packages so that makes sense

Yup, usethis is only really suited/ designed to be used in R packages so that makes sense

true, but... if I'm going to use a DESCRIPTION file in this repo, I think it makes sense to specify the license in it

Yup, usethis is only really suited/ designed to be used in R packages so that makes sense

true, but... if I'm going to use a DESCRIPTION file in this repo, I think it makes sense to specify the license in it

true... but, I think having a LICENSE file has value regardless of if you have a DESCRIPTION or not 😂

true... but, I think having a LICENSE file has value regardless of if you have a DESCRIPTION or not 😂

which brings it back to the beginning... I built this PR on top of #231 which adds a DESCRIPTION, so given that as the head, if one were to add a LICENSE file it would follow that they should likely also edit the DESCRIPTION file, which is what I did here. Once #231 is merged and this PR is updated, you will see that there is only one line added to the DESCRIPTION file: License: MIT + file LICENSE

What I'm getting at is:
In case we end up deciding on Thursday that workflow.* repos should not be packages, and we end up deciding NOT to merge #231, we may still want to add a LICENSE file here.

So a PR that just adds the LICENSE file alone still has value. It doesn't NEED to depend on a DESCRIPTION file...

and this PR (as it is currently named) I would expect to JUST add a LICENSE file. Especially given that no DESCRIPTION file currently exists on main.

Either way, up to you.

We can call this blocked by #231
Or can just open a new PR with just a LICENSE file

What I'm getting at is: In case we end up deciding on Thursday that workflow.* repos should not be packages, and we end up deciding NOT to merge #231, we may still want to add a LICENSE file here.

So a PR that just adds the LICENSE file alone still has value. It doesn't NEED to depend on a DESCRIPTION file...

and this PR (as it is currently named) I would expect to JUST add a LICENSE file. Especially given that no DESCRIPTION file currently exists on main.

Then let's just wait for the result of that meeting, as I already said I would do. If we decide that "workflow.*" maintainers are allowed to add a DESCRIPTION file then I will merge these PRs in order as intended. If not, I will close #231 and probably this one and possibly open a new PR that just adds a LICENSE and a LICENSE.md file.

This PR, as intended, was to "Add license", which in my mind includes adding a LICENSE file, plus adding a LICENSE.md file, plus, since it has/will have a DESCRIPTION file, adding the specification of the license to the DESCRIPTION file. To me there's no intent implicit in the title "Add license" that suggests that it can only add or modify a single file, the intent is to do all the things relevant to add a license to the repo, which in my mind, given a DESCRIPTION file, includes specifying the license appropriately in the DESCRIPTION file.

@jdhoffa does this make sense now?

Docker image from this PR (f850e37) created

docker pull ghcr.io/rmi-pacta/workflow.transition.monitor:pr232