Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:51 -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: > That said, here's a potential pain point Hi, please, do not forget of Bugzilla integration with backtraces. It can colorize them, it can show possible duplicates with score when the backtrace is opened in its own window, and it can

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Heya, Good discussion, nice input from everyone involved! I summarized what we have so far in a new page with community input in https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/CommunityInput Keep in mind I tried to extract the most important points, to have an effective list of

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 14:22 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > The outcome of this evaluation process is that we are recommending > that GNOME sets up its own GitLab instance, as a replacement for > Bugzilla and cgit. Hi, with respect of the cgit, it lets me download sources (snapshot) as a .zip

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:51 -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: > That said, here's a potential pain point: in Bugzilla, you can have > different components auto-assign to different accounts, and we made > these @gnome.bugs fake accounts for teams. The docs team uses this to > make it easy to follow docs

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 12:17 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > please, do not forget of Bugzilla integration with backtraces. It can > colorize them, it can show possible duplicates with score when the > backtrace is opened in its own window, and it can even notify the > reporter that the backtrace

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:28 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > 2- what are the migration plans for bugzilla: bugzilla URL, bug numbers and > the actual content [...] > Also, different projects might have different needs for migration. While that is true, it is more confusing if I can find all the

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 17:54 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:36 PM, wrote: > ... > > We need a much better migration plan than that. If we don't have a > > script to migrate Bugzilla issues, comments, and attachments to our > > new GitLab instance, then we

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible since the start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore its License file would need to reflect that? Original Message Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+ Local Time: May 18, 2017 7:02 PM

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Hello, After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a burden than the real benefit. The only problem that arises

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

017-05-18 18:22 GMT+02:00 Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list : > The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday > discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only > cannot be used anymore. > Keep in mind GPL2+ are

Re: gnome-settings-daemon/gnome-control-center under new ownership

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hey, > > At GUADEC 2010, Matthias asked Richard Hughes and I to help with gnome- > control-center's port to GTK+ 3.x and update all the panels to the new > control-center shell that Jon McCann had been polishing. > >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Ah good catch, thanks! The copyright is holded by only one person, so he can freely change it the plugin is still maintained. Best regards, Carlos Soriano Original Message Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+ Local Time: May 18, 2017 6:54 PM UTC Time: May 18, 2017 4:54

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On 18/05/17 18:22, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list wrote: > Hello, > > After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside > nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away > from that code or convince those authors to relicense as

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hey, On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 14:22 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > [Written on behalf of Alberto Ruiz, Carlos Soriano, Andrea Veri, > Emmanuele Bassi and myself.] > > Please bear in mind that this is just a recommendation! We are not > claiming to have complete knowledge and we would like to hear >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 13:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- list wrote: > Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible > since the start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore > its License file would need to reflect that? No. nautilus' license says

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License file would have to reflect that initially. It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Ah yes, my bad. For some reason my mind didn't accept the "GPL2-only is compatible with GPL2+". All clear now. Original Message Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+ Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:05 AM UTC Time: May 18, 2017 10:05 PM From: had...@hadess.net To: Carlos

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of > those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But > that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License > file would have to reflect

Re: Paperwork / Gnome's dos and don'ts

17 mai 2017 21:58 "Sriram Ramkrishna" a écrit: > Howdy! > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:57 AM wrote: > >> b) Commercialization of Windows portage >> >> A while ago, I tried to sell the Windows version of Paperwork. It was based >> on a 60 days trial >>

gnome-settings-daemon/gnome-control-center under new ownership

Hey, At GUADEC 2010, Matthias asked Richard Hughes and I to help with gnome- control-center's port to GTK+ 3.x and update all the panels to the new control-center shell that Jon McCann had been polishing. Skip forward 7 years later, and I'm mostly doing patch reviews for features and redesigns

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) > > Hi, > > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to > GPLv3+. > > The codebase