Hi — thanks for TRIP-workflow, the plan → implement → release shape with a
review gate has held up really well in daily use.
Small but consequential gap: the README's license badge advertises MIT and
links to blob/master/LICENSE, but that file doesn't exist in the repository.
- The badge target returns 404, as does the raw URL.
- GitHub's repository API reports
"license": null, so the repo shows as
unlicensed in the UI and API.
- Searching the full history across all refs for any add/delete/rename of
*LICENSE*, *LICENCE* or *COPYING* turns up nothing — it looks like the
file was simply never committed alongside the badge.
Without the licence text, the default is ordinary all-rights-reserved
copyright, which puts anyone building on the project in an awkward spot even
though the badge clearly signals MIT was the intent. With 597 stars there are
probably a fair few people who read the badge and assumed the grant was in
place.
Would you consider adding the MIT text with your name and year? Happy to open
a PR with the standard file if that's easier — just say the word and let me
know how you'd like the copyright line to read.
For context on why I'm asking: I maintain a workflow project that originated
as a fork of this one, and I'm currently writing up its attribution properly.
I'd like the credit entry to state the licence accurately, and right now the
accurate statement is "badge says MIT, no licence file present" — which
undersells what you clearly intended.
Hi — thanks for TRIP-workflow, the plan → implement → release shape with a
review gate has held up really well in daily use.
Small but consequential gap: the README's license badge advertises MIT and
links to
blob/master/LICENSE, but that file doesn't exist in the repository."license": null, so the repo shows asunlicensed in the UI and API.
*LICENSE*,*LICENCE*or*COPYING*turns up nothing — it looks like thefile was simply never committed alongside the badge.
Without the licence text, the default is ordinary all-rights-reserved
copyright, which puts anyone building on the project in an awkward spot even
though the badge clearly signals MIT was the intent. With 597 stars there are
probably a fair few people who read the badge and assumed the grant was in
place.
Would you consider adding the MIT text with your name and year? Happy to open
a PR with the standard file if that's easier — just say the word and let me
know how you'd like the copyright line to read.
For context on why I'm asking: I maintain a workflow project that originated
as a fork of this one, and I'm currently writing up its attribution properly.
I'd like the credit entry to state the licence accurately, and right now the
accurate statement is "badge says MIT, no licence file present" — which
undersells what you clearly intended.