Hi rob you are in the list of ok commiters now when I run the script I did not add the pharoers to the list of authors. I should do that.
Now are you telling to me that you did the following steps and run it without getting a debugger? On which system are you? Stef On May 15, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Rob Rothwell wrote: > I tried to see if my signature is filed; I was quite excited to send > postage all the way to France, but do not see my name in the > signature list, or anywhere for that matter...but (unfortunately), > "RobRothwell" shows up, for example, in Class > DisplayScreen>>fullScreenOn... > > Rob > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected] > > wrote: > Hi all (and matthew we need your guidance/help) > > We really want to get pharo 1.0 license clean. It would be bad that > 1.0 is not. > But 1.0 should get out before summer. > > Here is a collection of all the information I collected on the topic: > > Here what matthew wrote > > I've done the first step and done a full audit, using Yoshiki's > tools [1], of all the code > in Squeak 3.10.2, with the exception of four packages: > - Monticello > - SUnit, TestRunner, and SUnitImproved > - Universes > - Traits > > I also applied all of yoshiki's etoys changes to 3.10.2. The > algorithm that Yoshiki seemed to follow when cleaning etoys is: > - If the method can be easily deleted, delete it > - Otherwise, use the historical image [1] to revert to the > latest version before the problematic author > - Fix any bugs this causes > > I think we can use the same procedure. Perhaps Yoshiki will > comment. > > So, to help with the relicense, grab the historical image[1], > check out the license audit [2], leave a note on mantis about > what you think you'll work on, and start rolling out change > sets. For your convenience, all of the license audits are > included both in the relicensing tools download and on mantis. > I'll try to keep both up to date as we progress with the > relicense > > [1] The tools I've been using to do the relicense: > http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0alpha/squeak4.0- > relicensingTools.zip > see also: > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-September/131586.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/MethodAuthorship.html > > [2] The 4.0 relicense mantis issue: > http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6989 > > > The most up-to-date list of ok contributors is at > http://www.squeaksource.com/311/MethodAuthorship-kph.17.mcz > See the class-side methods in Authorship, category data > > > here is another email from matthew > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:10:12AM +0200, stephane ducasse wrote: > > I need your guidance for the MIT conversion effort of Pharo > > Do you have some cycles to help me and telling me how to proceed? > > I'm on holidays (so working remotely so I may allocate some time on > > that). > > I can help you after school gets out in a week. I need to > do a quick count of how many lines of code need to be fixed in > squeak for submission to SFLC. I can do the same for Pharo. I > don't know how strenuous you want to be in your license > conversion. > > The next 3 steps in the license conversion process are, in no > particular order: > > - get a document from yoshiki documenting how etoys was > relicensed (and, by extension, cuis). The board will overview > it with the help of SFLC and determine if it is good enough. > - The board will publish a statement about what is and is not a > trivial-enough change to ignore. > - I will count up the lines of code to be converted, and > determine how many of them are trivial and non-trivial > > You should chat with Randal Schwartz about what you need to > decide before you can start relicensing, and what you need to > document in case your relicense needs to be reviewed in the > future. Yoshiki and Juan did not do this and thus we have no > evidence yet that Yoshiki's relicense is strong enough. > > I documented the priorities for squeak 4.0 in this email: > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134083.html > > You should probably figure out your priorities for the relicense > as well, so you know whose standards you need to meet. > > Since that email was written, Randal has indeed heard back from > SFLC, but I haven't heard what they had to say yet. > > -- > Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
