Re: [board-discuss] Re: New draft of the proposal for in-house developers
On 25/03/2022 06.50, Michael Weghorn wrote: I've seen Julien doing some work there recently. Maybe he, Lionel or anybody else might be able to say more on whether it would make sense to consider that as a potential area to be worked on by TDF in-house developers. [Something went wrong when copy-pasting Lionel's email address to "CC" in the previous email, I've forwarded it to him in private.] -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] Re: New draft of the proposal for in-house developers
Hi Paolo, thanks for the updated draft and integrating my references to meta bugs. Another potential focus area might be Base (the database module). Alex mentioned it in another thread (that had a different main focus) [1] and I've heard from time to time that it isn't in the best shape. There's tdf#120062 [2] as a meta bug for database related bugs and enhancements. I'm not using Base myself, though, and don't have any overview of its current status. I've seen Julien doing some work there recently. Maybe he, Lionel or anybody else might be able to say more on whether it would make sense to consider that as a potential area to be worked on by TDF in-house developers. Best regards, Michael [1] https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00060.html [2] https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=120062_resolved=1 -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Hi Andreas, all, Andreas Mantke wrote: > Am 24.03.22 um 00:20 schrieb Thorsten Behrens: > > • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” or > >“pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes to > >the code to be shared as it was the last time it was “atticisized”; > > I'm curious why there is not only push function is disabled but also > pull function. Does this mean that there is no 'git clone' available too? > That seems to be a misunderstanding. A "pull request" in git(hub) lingo means asking an upstream git project to merge a change. A readonly clone is going to be available for atticized projects. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Hi, Thorsten Behrens wrote on 24/03/2022 00:20: calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. Thanks to all involved in the discussion .. and +1 from me, Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke píše v Čt 24. 03. 2022 v 21:24 +0100: > > • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” > > or > >“pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes > > to > >the code to be shared as it was the last time it was > > “atticisized”; > > I'm curious why there is not only push function is disabled but also > pull function. Does this mean that there is no 'git clone' available > too? It is "pull request" as a term known originally from GitHub, not "pull", so "git clone" is supposed to be available; it would make no sense without that of course. GH explains "pull request" as: "Pull requests let you tell others about changes you've pushed to a branch in a repository on GitHub. Once a pull request is opened, you can discuss and review the potential changes with collaborators and add follow-up commits before your changes are merged into the base branch." All the best, Kendy -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Jan Holesovsky píše v Čt 24. 03. 2022 v 20:07 +0100: > > calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic > > Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. > > Thank you for this effort, +1 from me. Oops, meant to +1 from this email address :-) [Sorry about that, I've mis-configured after a reinstall...] All the best, Kendy -- Jan Holešovský, Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Hi all, Am 24.03.22 um 00:20 schrieb Thorsten Behrens: (...) • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” or “pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes to the code to be shared as it was the last time it was “atticisized”; I'm curious why there is not only push function is disabled but also pull function. Does this mean that there is no 'git clone' available too? Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
Hi Thorsten & Emiliano, all, Thorsten Behrens píše v Čt 24. 03. 2022 v 00:20 +0100: > calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic > Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. Thank you for this effort, +1 from me. All the best, Kendy -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
On Thu, 2022-03-24 at 00:20 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Dear directors, > > calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic > Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. +1 in favor. -- Caolán McNamara, Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve the attic proposal
I vote +1. I wrote: > Dear directors, > > calling for an email VOTE on the below final version of the Attic > Proposal. The vote runs for 72 hours, starting now. > > Changes since v2.1: > * corrected mistakes found during Monday board call > * light touch-ups for English > * aligned the readme text suggestions with the changes in the prose > above > > Best, Thorsten > > -%<-- > > ## Introduction > > It can happen, within a huge project like LibreOffice, that parts > of the project worked on by the community will become obsolete or > superseded by other projects. The following proposal will deal > with the need to let the code (and/or other forms of text related > to the code) be publicly available, while setting the correct > expectations around its availability, suitability for a > production environment, quality and security. > > ## What is the “attic”? > > The “attic” is a special area of TDF's infrastructure where part of > the code/documentation/translations, which is not being actively > developed, can be stored. This will help to set the correct > expectations on its development status, while not losing its > fundamental trait of being open source (so its code must be > publicly available). > > In the present proposal, the “attic” would be a single host > inside TDF's infrastructure, available via HTTP/HTTPS protocols, > responding to a URI similar to: > https://attic.documentfoundation.org > > ## Specificity of the “attic” > > This “attic” space will have, at a minimum, the following characteristics: > > • It is supported by Git – the well known VCS developed initially by > Linus Torvalds and used to share the sources of the Linux > kernel. Being supported by Git will ease forking of the code > contained there; > > • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” or > “pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes to > the code to be shared as it was the last time it was “atticisized”; > > • Anonymous access to the repositories has to be made the default > access method: we want code present in the “attic” to be always > available to everyone; > > • It should have a recognizable URL – or internet address, less > technically: this allows for the code present to be clearly > separated by other actively-developed code; > > • A specific text explaining the nature of the code, its > “deatticization” requirements and how to get support for the code > inside the repository needs to be present in the README of every > repository. The text of these disclaimers and the deatticization > requirements will be discussed further on in the proposal. Regarding > contacts to get support, the idea is to provide quick and ready > information on who/where to ask for anything related to the code in > the repository. > > The proposed implementation of this space is by using git-http-backend [1]. > The proposal has already been evaluated by the infrastructure team, and > the overhead for maintaining such a solution will be “negligible”. > > ## Considerations about the approval procedure for atticization/deatticization > > As per the Statutes of the Foundation, the Board of Directors (BoD) should > be the ultimate decision-making body of the Foundation; thus it has > technically the last word on the approval or the refusal of an > atticization/deatticization proposal. > > If we analyse the matter at hand, we recognize that there is another codified > body inside TDF that is directly composed by the technical part of the > community and, as such, should have more insights and knowledge on the parts > of the project that are proposed to be atticized/deatticized; that body is > the Engineering Steering Committee (ESC). > > As such, a common and shared understanding of the political and technical > impacts of the atticization/deatticization proposal has to be reached by the > two bodies, all together, and this understanding should be condensed into a > unique, unambiguous preference towards approval or disapproval. > > The leanest approval process would then be: the ESC expresses its > preference, and the BoD agrees with the ESC. The proposal is then officially > accepted or refused by the BoD, according to the preference expressed. > > If this doesn't happen, a shared discussion in a public meeting with the > members of both bodies is highly recommended; the goal of such > consultations would be to understand and underline weaknesses and threats of > the proposal, and eventually to get to a unique preference. > > Whatever the means of the consultations are, and if there is no clear > preference for an outcome, but the BoD is called to decide anyway, it has to > provide an official written report on the merits of the decisions, the > decisions taken, and a mitigation plan for the hard blockers identified > during the discussion. > > ## Atticization process > > The
