Fantastic Arve! Thanks for pitching in. -chip
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Arve Paalsrud <arve.paals...@bayonette.no> wrote: > This code snippet is written by Jacob Gilley in a forum thread over at F5 Dev > Central in 2005, and not F5 Network themselves. F5's version and the original > code are identical - they've only added the copyright statements and optional > GPL, so I've reached out to Jacob and asked if he's willing to release it > under Apache. > > Waiting for his reply. > > -Arve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Cole [mailto:fernc...@gmail.com] > Sent: 1. august 2012 02:57 > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code? > > +1 (non-binding and certainly not official) for taking the opportunity > +to > rewrite code as a chance to make things better, vs least efforts. > > Code written more than several months prior can often be written better > anyway (one hopes their skills age well :P). Particularly, unit tests are a > welcome great improvement whenever there's code to be "rewritten". I'd go so > far as to say code without unit tests are often time bombs that should be > rewritten anyway. > > -A > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 01/08/2012, at 6:52 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Does anyone know the official ASF stance on what it means to >> > "re-write" a section of code? >> >> There's no general answer to this - each case needs to be considered >> separately. This was the closest I could find in the archives: >> http://s.apache.org/rewriting-code >> >> > >> > Specifically, I was looking at the F5 code [1] that was found during >> > license header changes (and is considered a release blocker bug [2]). >> > The code is actually quite trivial in nature, and I'm wondering what >> > it would take to correctly write a replacement class file. My >> > assumption is that simply re-naming variables wouldn't work (and >> > even if that was enough, there are only a handful of them in the file). >> >> I agree, renaming variables is definitely not right. >> >> In this case it is trivial (I googled and found a half-dozen examples >> doing the same thing), so I'd say remove it and have someone >> reimplement it. It may be better in these cases if they haven't seen >> the original code, but not strictly necessary. It is probably a good >> opportunity to refactor calling code too, if needed. >> >> In other cases, an option available is to ask the copyright holder if >> they'd consider contributing/granting a license to a piece of code to >> include here. >> >> Ultimately, we want to make sure we do the right thing by the authors >> and that code here is intentionally contributed. >> >> HTH, >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> br...@apache.org >> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ >> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter >> http://twitter.com/brettporter >> >> >> >> >> >> >
