Ive created an issue to track this work. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3734
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > With no blocking votes, one +0,and five +1's this pup has passed. Thank > you to everyone who contributed to this PUP, especially @richardfontana. > > As a next step, we need to add the COMMITMENT file to all the right repos. > If anyone wants to do that feel free and maybe reply on-thread, otherwise > I'll do it when I'm back from PTO on Wed. > > https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0005.md > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> >> -------- >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >> >> "Do not go where the path may lead, >> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Dana Walker >>>> >>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>> >>>> Red Hat >>>> >>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +0 >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Voting closes June 2nd. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have read this through and appreciate @richardfontana's >>>>>> response/explanation to questions: https://github.com/pulp/pups/p >>>>>> ull/9#issuecomment-393317027 >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Through feedback on the issue and discussion in #pulp-dev, one >>>>>>>> small language revision [0] was added to PUP5 [1]. I believe we are >>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>> to call a vote. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Voting for PUP5 is open and will close on June 2nd. Please respond >>>>>>>> with your vote to this thread if you feel so inclined (lazy consensus). >>>>>>>> Barring any -1's cast, PUP5 will be merged on June 4th. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/richardfontana/pups/commit/99fcd35e1cc396 >>>>>>>> a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333 >>>>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Brian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @ipanova, I think of the core team as only maintaining pulp/pulp >>>>>>>>> and pulp/devel so I limit the scope of this to those repos only. I >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> pulp_rpm (or any plugin) could adopt the CCRC without a PUP by >>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>>>> the "Displaying the CRCC section >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files#diff-e883d39d60672a684862d3cef971e94eR106>" >>>>>>>>> in their own repo. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @dawalker, relicensing to GPLv3 is an alternative. It's not a bad >>>>>>>>> option, but it would be more complicated. Since every committer with >>>>>>>>> even a >>>>>>>>> single line of current code is a copyright holder of the codebase, >>>>>>>>> and it >>>>>>>>> would require a 100% signoff from all copyright holders, in practice >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> can be difficult. Also someone may not even use that email anymore so >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> may not even be possible. I haven't assessed how many Pulp3 >>>>>>>>> committers we >>>>>>>>> have currently for the Pulp3 codebase. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was recently part of a relicensing which failed >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25>, >>>>>>>>> but it shows what the process looks like: >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25 If >>>>>>>>> someone wants to champion switching to GPLv3 and create an issue like >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> and get all the signoffs I'm not opposed to relicensing to GPLv3 >>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>> adopting the CRCC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other than the noted point that it takes time, is there any >>>>>>>>>> reason why Pulp should stay on the current license instead of moving >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> GPLv3 (one of the stated alternatives in this PUP)? I don't know >>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>> about the differences currently, but it strikes me that our new Pulp >>>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>> using Python 3 would be a good fit for moving to a new license as >>>>>>>>>> well that >>>>>>>>>> has taken various things such as this enforcement issue into account >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> evolved over time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --Dana >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dana Walker >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *understanding >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To make a concrete example to prove my understating: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since pulp_rpm is maintained by core team we could adopt this >>>>>>>>>>>> change, meanwhile pulp_deb is beyond our control and we( core >>>>>>>>>>>> team) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> enforce or influence this change. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A Pulp Update Proposal (PUP) pull request has been opened by >>>>>>>>>>>>> the go-to-lawyer for the Pulp community, Richard Fontana. The PUP >>>>>>>>>>>>> is PUP5 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [0]. I don't want to paraphrase it here, so please read it [0] if >>>>>>>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to understand what it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am proposing a period of questions/discussion via the >>>>>>>>>>>>> list/PR and then a call for a vote according to the process. All >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions >>>>>>>>>>>>> are welcome, please ask. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> # Timeline >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today - May 18th mailing list and PR discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>> May 18th - formally call for a vote which would end 12 >>>>>>>>>>>>> calendar days from then May 30th >>>>>>>>>>>>> May 30th - Merge or reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> # FAQs >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this relicensing Pulp? >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It's still GPLv2. This adopts a procedural enforment >>>>>>>>>>>>> approach within the existing license. See @rfontana's response >>>>>>>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-384523020 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do all prior contributors need to sign off on this change? >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because it's not a relicensing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this affect core, plugins, or both? >>>>>>>>>>>>> This PR is only scoped to affect the GPLv2 codebases >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained by the core team. Plugins make their own decisions >>>>>>>>>>>>> without PUPs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially this would be pulp/pulp, and as other GPLv2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> repositories are >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained by the core team, it would apply to this in the future >>>>>>>>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev