docs: promote the licence footer into a License section - #67
Conversation
The licence was already stated in a footer after a horizontal rule, so it did not appear in the document outline or in GitHub's README sidebar navigation. Promoting it to '## License' makes it findable without changing the wording or the attribution. The repo carries a genuine Apache-2.0 LICENSE at its root, which matches the claim.
|
Understand this PR’s impact Explore downstream dependencies and potential security impact with Blast Radius. Important Review skippedReview was skipped as selected files did not have any reviewable changes. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe README replaces the horizontal rule after the Publish section with a ChangesREADME Documentation
Priority: ⬇️ Low Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Change: Other 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
What
Promotes the licence footer at the bottom of
README.mdinto a proper## Licensesection.Why
The org
repo-standardsworkflow added a README check that looks for a## License(or### Licence, or## <emoji> License) heading. This repostated its licence, but only as a footer after a horizontal rule:
Because it was not a heading, it did not appear in the document outline or in
GitHub's README sidebar navigation, so a reader scanning section headings for
licensing terms would not find it.
What changed
The horizontal rule becomes a
## Licenseheading. The licence text and theattribution line are byte-for-byte unchanged, and nothing else in the README
was touched — the diff is one line removed and two added.
Licence claim verified
The README's claim matches what the repo actually carries: there is an
Apache-2.0
LICENSEat the repo root, and GitHub's own licence detectionreports
apache-2.0for this repo. No relative link was added, so no newlink target needed creating.
Test plan
repo-standards.ymlcheckerand ran it against this clone: 1 violation before, 0 after.
## Licenseintroduces no duplicate H2 heading.LICENSEfile is Apache-2.0.Summary by CodeRabbit