On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Hi rob
>
> you are in the list of ok commiters
Great; thanks...
> now when I run the script I did not add the pharoers to the list of
> authors.
> I should do that.
Make sense!
Now are you telling to me that you did the following steps and run it
> without getting a debugger?
Which steps? I just loaded the mcz and browsed the class side:
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
>
> On which system are you?
I just checked it out in a pharo0.1-10303dev09.05.1.image updated to 10306
on Windows XP Professional and everything loaded fine...
Take care,
Rob
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
