Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> We just discussed about it on IRC with Mario and Jonathan, and I think
> things are clearer now.
>
> Basically I'll discuss with the avrdude maintainers in a bit and
> clarify the scope of the issue ("open source" and "linux", and only
> that), point them to the hosting requirement so they see we don't
> invent them on the fly, and discuss the issue a bit to find an
> agreement.
Better if you do it, of course. I was just volunteering in case none
of you got the time.
> We also made clear that we're site admins, but not project admins, and
> that there are limit on what we can do.
>
> Incidentally Joerg just sent me a private mail which makes me think we
> can do it in good intelligence.
>
> How does that sound?
Sounds great. In fact the project already did the required changes, at
least on the front page:
http://www.nongnu.org/avrdude/
And they closed the bug. I did not search the entire manual, but I am
sure that Mario's keen eyes can spot any non-compliance left.
Alex.
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 April 18th 2010 in savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org copy to Sylvain Beucler , Karl Berry thread "Hosting requirements in avrdude". Sylvain and me We just chat about this on #savannah, for the logs: *I did enforced the hosting requirements, but I "tried to fix the situation in such a bossy way". *Someone else will take care of the AVR issue. *I will now not make the changes myself but talk the issue with rest savannah hackers. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAkvLcOMACgkQZ4DA0TLic4j4rgCfV0PHtta1o1D+lc8B8cdUz5Z5 G1QAnjt9ZkoAGi6NoZ/Jk3T3/tvlduBG =BCX+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:13:36PM +0200, Alex Fernandez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > I suggest we now wait for a day or two, and other Savannah admins will
> > resume the conversation with the avrdude maintainers to clarify what
> > the requirements are.
>
> I agree (not as a junior admin, but as someone with some experience
> working with other developers). I volunteer to take the matter up with
> your oversight and Mario's, who always does an excellent job at
> monitoring for compliance. If another admin with more experience
> (Sylvain for instance) prefers to take it into their own hands that is
> fine with me.
We just discussed about it on IRC with Mario and Jonathan, and I think
things are clearer now.
Basically I'll discuss with the avrdude maintainers in a bit and
clarify the scope of the issue ("open source" and "linux", and only
that), point them to the hosting requirement so they see we don't
invent them on the fly, and discuss the issue a bit to find an
agreement.
We also made clear that we're site admins, but not project admins, and
that there are limit on what we can do.
Incidentally Joerg just sent me a private mail which makes me think we
can do it in good intelligence.
How does that sound?
--
Sylvain
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > I suggest we now wait for a day or two, and other Savannah admins will > resume the conversation with the avrdude maintainers to clarify what > the requirements are. I agree (not as a junior admin, but as someone with some experience working with other developers). I volunteer to take the matter up with your oversight and Mario's, who always does an excellent job at monitoring for compliance. If another admin with more experience (Sylvain for instance) prefers to take it into their own hands that is fine with me. Alex.
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
Hi all, Hmm, it looks like the situation somewhat got out of hands. Apologizes if you felt the request was worded unpolitely. We'll discuss the problem and come back to you in a while to clarify the situation. Regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
Hi, On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 10:57:52PM +, Karl Berry wrote: > Taking into account POSIX is a propietary standard > > Well, it is not exactly proprietary. Lots of GNU packages expend a lot > of effort to follow POSIX, and many GNU developers contribute to writing > the standards. > > avrdude is not GNU software. If it wants to call itself "POSIX" that > seems fine to me. Referring to "Linux" as the whole system (and talking > about "open source") is the specific wording thing that savannah-hosted > packages should avoid. How nongnu packages want to avoid can be left up > to them. Mario, I think you're taking this too personaly. Your actions on this particular issue have been invasive and somewhat rude, which made other people angry. I suggest we now wait for a day or two, and other Savannah admins will resume the conversation with the avrdude maintainers to clarify what the requirements are. The fact we technically can do things, as administrators, doesn't mean we can do them morally. We cannot add ourselves as project members without the project admins consent, we cannot subscribe to private mailing lists without the project admin consent, and we generally are not in position to comment on project choices unless they directly violate the hosting requirements. You had a nice idea to raise the issue of non-compliance to the avrdude maintainers, but in the process you want beyond your administrator privileges. So I don't think you should continue to work on this issue. -- Sylvain
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
Taking into account POSIX is a propietary standard Well, it is not exactly proprietary. Lots of GNU packages expend a lot of effort to follow POSIX, and many GNU developers contribute to writing the standards. avrdude is not GNU software. If it wants to call itself "POSIX" that seems fine to me. Referring to "Linux" as the whole system (and talking about "open source") is the specific wording thing that savannah-hosted packages should avoid. How nongnu packages want to avoid can be left up to them. Thanks, k
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 April 17th 2010 for Sylvain Beucler copy in savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org thread "Hosting requirements in avrdude". >If the reference to "Linux" is somewhere hosted by us, then the >hosting requirement apply. Yeah. those references are in http://www.nongnu.org/avrdude/ and in the documentation inside the tarball. Also note the main page refers to the propietary AVRstudio but I'm not sure if this violate the requirements. It says: Due to the growing interest in porting the software to other operating systems, Brian decided to make the project publically accessible on savannah.nongnu.org. The name change to AVRDUDE has been chosen to resolve the ambiguity with the avrprog utility as distributed by Atmel together with their AVRstudio software. What do you think?. >In which case, they need to distinguish whether they are talking >about the "Linux kernel" or the "GNU/Linux system" (which, as we're >talking about embedded development, may not be easy to choose). Is not so hard really. They are talking about the supported OS for the host machine used to transfer the compiled code to the microcontroller: GNU/Linux, NetBSD, W, or so... but they call it just "Linux". >>"we always ask the mantainer to fix the issue before proceed to apply >>stronger actions" >but we don't ask much, they need to comply. I mean, we ask to fix the issue before delete the submission in the case of project not approved yet. I don't know what is the procedure in the case of alredy approved projects. Could you please provide me more information in this point?. >The same applies for "open source". Sure. Eric sugessted to open a bug in the tracker because items get lost in the mailing list. It is here: https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?29581. >Spell-checking would be nice too ;) I didn't had the time to configure ispell mode yet. Maybe the next weekend. === Thanks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAkvKByQACgkQZ4DA0TLic4jI6gCgjKJNitCzE0VE1CALYSZCtaYO azYAoIjb42jJ8KmxfkBPAFwAxO5M/UbM =SiAm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:26:34AM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > April 17th 2010 for Sylvain Beucler copy in > savannah-hackers-pub...@gnu.org. > > >>*AVRdude still uses SVN, whose is slow and lack important features. > >>I advice you switch to a modern DVCS; this is *not* a requirement at > >>all, is just adviced for the comfort of the users. > > >The other points are good, but I think you can only get irrelevant > >flame wars if you start advocating VCSes to users :) > > It was only a minor sugesstion. I think I would feel it intrusive if I were the maintainer, even if it's a suggestion. As a result this makes this delicate message, as a whole, sound more intruisive. > However, most developers did get > untidy and rude with the requirements (See thread > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/avrdude-dev/2010-04/msg00016.html). > There was only one positive response > (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avrdude-dev/2010-04/msg00018.html). > > Someone even prefer to change the references to "Linux" to "POSIX" in > order to a avoid at all any reference to GNU > (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/avrdude-dev/2010-04/msg00022.html). > Taking into account POSIX is a propietary standard I don't agree with > Joerg. I sugesst instead to list each platform as in > http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/#Platforms but I don't see this in > the requirements page. What do you think?. If the reference to "Linux" is somewhere hosted by us, then the hosting requirement apply. In which case, they need to distinguish whether they are talking about the "Linux kernel" or the "GNU/Linux system" (which, as we're talking about embedded development, may not be easy to choose). And if they disagree with that, that's a problem, but we don't ask much, they need to comply. If it's not hosted on our machines, then I don't think we need to do anything. The same applies for "open source". I suggest trying to act with diplomacy as it usually make things better than enforcement. Spell-checking would be nice too ;) -- Sylvain
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 April 17th 2010 for Sylvain Beucler copy in savannah-hackers-pub...@gnu.org. >>*AVRdude still uses SVN, whose is slow and lack important features. >>I advice you switch to a modern DVCS; this is *not* a requirement at >>all, is just adviced for the comfort of the users. >The other points are good, but I think you can only get irrelevant >flame wars if you start advocating VCSes to users :) It was only a minor sugesstion. However, most developers did get untidy and rude with the requirements (See thread http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/avrdude-dev/2010-04/msg00016.html). There was only one positive response (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avrdude-dev/2010-04/msg00018.html). Someone even prefer to change the references to "Linux" to "POSIX" in order to a avoid at all any reference to GNU (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/avrdude-dev/2010-04/msg00022.html). Taking into account POSIX is a propietary standard I don't agree with Joerg. I sugesst instead to list each platform as in http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/#Platforms but I don't see this in the requirements page. What do you think?. Regards. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAkvJ4SAACgkQZ4DA0TLic4hxXQCfc8VQnT6vLNeefQIwmLeR6/Qq EaQAn15RmIW/t1Uee7mevd+HZXaAOq7N =R5wp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Hosting requirements in avrdude
Hi, On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:41:40PM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > *AVRdude still uses SVN, whose is slow and lack important features. I > advice you switch to a modern DVCS; this is *not* a requirement at > all, is just adviced for the comfort of the users. The other points are good, but I think you can only get irrelevant flame wars if you start advocating VCSes to users :) There are a number of issues when switching from SVN to another VCS, including lack of ms woe support, lack of integration with 3rd-party tools such as Eclipse, lack of GUI, necessity to reconfigure hooks, necessity to teach users and contributors, etc., etc. -- Sylvain
