So the problem is not new files, new files will always have a new Apache header (that is certain). What I am talking about is modifying current files, for example I have an upcoming PR which changes the package name from akka to org.apache.pekko. This PR will likely touch every single .java and .scala source file and while in some cases the change is trivial (i.e. literally the `package akka` to `package org.apache.pekko`), other changes are not trivial at all. For example parts of the build file need to be changed so that generated source files from protobuff go to the right package and even certain source files have to also be changed because return types with the FQN (fully qualified name) which includes the package name as well. There are also cases like this https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko-http/pull/8#issuecomment-1316786937 .
In summary I am starting to notice that as time goes on, even to get to the full release we will have to modify current files. Also when discussing this with Claude, I proposed another solution which is "can we just make it so that any change aside from just scalafmt is a major change" which would mean that whenever a currently existing source file is changed in any way then we just add the Apache Header onto the existing Lightbend copyright one but I am not sure if that will fly. Legal seems to imply that we need to distinguish between minor and major. On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 1:46 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: > I was going to suggest something similar - that if we can add new code > in new class files - that this simplifies the discussion. > > Obviously, this can't always be the answer because if used the wrong > way it messes up the public API. The Lightbend headered file could > call the new code in the Apache headered file. > > In some cases, we may still need to make all the changes in the > original Lightbend headered file. And in that case, we could add the > Apache header after the Lightbend header. > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:38, He Pin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Can we just add new apache header to newly created files, that's a much > simpler rule to follow? > > And what about the akka/stream/impl/fusing/Ops.scala which contains a > lots of akka stream operators? Would It be better that adding new operators > to a dedicated files? > > > > > > On 2022/11/17 12:04:37 Matthew Benedict de Detrich wrote: > > > Yeah the issue is more about having to repeat this discussion on every > > > single PR due to having to agree upon what is a minor or a major > change, > > > not about this one specifically. Another thing to keep in mind is that > > > evidently people also have different opinions on what is a minor > change and > > > what is a major. This itself is completely fine and normal, the > problem is > > > that depending on who is reviewing a certain PR we can get > > > different results of what is minor vs major and since we are dealing > with > > > legal issues here this is not exactly desirable. > > > > > > This is why I am personally leaning much towards the "lets delegate all > > > these header decisions due to minor vs major change at once just before > > > release". With such a strategy it's easier to get everyone's opinion > from > > > the PMCC on the matter, collectively come to some conclusion and then > as a > > > result of that conclusion we can create more clear rules going forward. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:51 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > In https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/50 - I'd prefer > to add > > > > the ASF header to the CopyrightHeader.scala file - after the existing > > > > Lightbend header. > > > > > > > > I think the change is non-trivial. > > > > > > > > I think this policy would allow us to make some progress. At the > moment, > > > > the header issue is really jamming up the works. > > > > > > > > On 2022/11/17 09:21:21 Matthew Benedict de Detrich wrote: > > > > > Currently there appears to be confusion and/or disagreement > regarding > > > > what > > > > > constitutes a minor vs major change. For context please have a > look at > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/issues/38#issuecomment-1311468140 > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > The main problem I foresee (which arguably in my opinion has > already > > > > > started) is that due to the definition of minor vs major being > quite > > > > > subjective, it's already started holding up the progress of doing > work on > > > > > Pekko. This has already started with the PR at > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/50 and also at > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko-http/pull/8#issuecomment-1316786937 > > > > . > > > > > In short, if we are going to debate on every single PR what > constitutes a > > > > > minor or major change it's going to significantly decrease the > velocity > > > > of > > > > > getting stuff done. > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for us to come to a more technical/strict > definition > > > > > on what constitutes a minor or major change? The current > disagreement > > > > from > > > > > the previously mentioned PR's is about whether a change to the > build > > > > (which > > > > > has no effect on the execution/use of the software) is major but > there > > > > will > > > > > undoubtedly be many more cases in the future (i.e. does the package > > > > rename > > > > > from akka to org.apache.pekko also count as a major change? This > one is a > > > > > lot less clear). > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively is it also possible for us to suspend the changing of > > > > source > > > > > headers depending on minor/major changes just before we decide to > make a > > > > > release? This way we can completely eliminate overhead as we work > > > > towards a > > > > > release and then when a release is ready someone can create a PR > with the > > > > > necessary header changes and in that PR itself we can discuss what > is > > > > minor > > > > > and what is major. This can then be tackled at once with increased > focus > > > > > and efficiency rather than having to do this work on every PR which > > > > incurs > > > > > a lot of overhead. This is especially appealing if the decision of > minor > > > > vs > > > > > major is going to remain largely subjective. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > > > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > > > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > > > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > > > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > > > > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Matthew de Detrich *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen *m:* +491603708037 *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected]
