Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache NuttX to TLP
Sorry, I need to change my vote to -1. I just discovered a brand issue we need to address before graduation. It looks like the trademark of Nuttx[1] is still not transferred to ASF. We need the trademark VP approval before starting the vote. [1] https://nuttx.apache.org/docs/latest/introduction/trademarks.html Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem We can do that, but I do not know the process. Some legal help will be needed. The procedure is here: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-assignments-change-search-ownership - There is a government fee of $40 (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Trademark%20Fees, fee code 8521). - We need to file a new trademark ownership assignment. I think this can be done electronically: https://etas.uspto.gov/ It would be good to have some assistance from a knowledgeable person in the ASF. Gregory Nutt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Accept NuttX into the Apache Incubator
Congrats to Nuttx team - this is an official Apache Incubator project now. Thank you for you help and support, Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Accept NuttX into the Apache Incubator
Justin, And raised an infra JIRA to set up the LDAP/DNS. [1] Once that is done we can set up the mailing lists and other infrastructure. Thank you for all of your help and good advice in accomplishing this. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept NuttX into the Apache Incubator
+1 (non-binding) Gregory Nutt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Thanks for offering the help here though and I just added you as initial committer per Greg's suggestions. I have a request to add Abdelatif GUETTOUCHE as an initial committer as well. I posted the current state of the proposal in the NuttX forum and so there may be additional volunteers. I appreciate that we do have to cut this off at some point and I also appreciate your patience with the volatility. Another person has requested to be an initial committer. If possible, please add him to the proposal as well: Nathan Hartman Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Hi, Junping Thanks for offering the help here though and I just added you as initial committer per Greg's suggestions. I have a request to add Abdelatif GUETTOUCHE as an initial committer as well. I posted the current state of the proposal in the NuttX forum and so there may be additional volunteers. I appreciate that we do have to cut this off at some point and I also appreciate your patience with the volatility. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Sorry Justin, Greg explained me that only member of the IPMC can be a mentor. But you are certainly welcome to be added as an initial committer. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
This is a good discussion to have had before entering the incubator, and I'm satisfied that the intent is good, and the podling can demonstrate during incubation that the founder will in fact step back and allow the project to move forward without the founder's undue influence. Note that it's fine for the founder to continue to work on the project, but in a different role. I have been standing back and not getting deeply involved with this discussion because it pertains too closely to me. It is my intention to divest myself of total authority over the project just as stated in the Proposal. Further, it is my intention to stay out of the initial formation of the project as much as possible, in partial fulfillment of Ted Dunning's "thought experiment." I intend to vote 0 on all decisions before the PPMC -- unless, I suppose, I had some very strong opinion about some topic. I cannot imagine what topic that might be, however. I will be available as needed for information needed by the others to accomplish this transition but for the most part, just consider me as on vacation in place. I will help as much as needed and stay out of the way as much as possible. I suppose I should say a little more about my motivations in this. Without some understanding, is is reasonable to be skeptical. Yes, the project is very dear to me and the result of many years of blood, sweat, and tears and years of work mostly done alone for crazy long hours. Being a "benevolent dictator" does not proper describe my past role because I was the ONLY person on the project. I did everything. I still do. There are two things that motivate me: First, the workload has gotten to be far too much for one person. I dispose of around 60-100 changes per week and really have no personal life left. It is more than I can do (and much more than I can do well). The only real way to solve that is to open the project up to others working as equals. The second, and more important, motivation is the I am closing in on 70 years old now. I retired 8 retires ago and I cannot realistically control this project long into the future. For my personal health and sanity, I really need to detach and let the project take a life of its own that does not depend on me in any way. I would see the biggest risk to a new PPMC would not be me, but rather the sheer volume of work that the PPMC is stepping into. I am prepared for some initial chaos and perhaps a missed release cycle. But I have come to accept that that is a reasonable price to pay for a clean knife-edge hand-off. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
... The problem maybe the stuff on BitBucket other than code, for example, the issues and PRs? I do not think it is easy to transfer these things... Are they important to the project Greg? I think they are not so important. There are only 18 (nuttx) plus 3 (apps) on Bitbucket. It would probably be simpler to treat these as new issues. Some are very old, most are feature requests or obscure problems on specific hardware. None are critical to the health of the OS. https://bitbucket.org/nuttx/nuttx/issues?status=new=open https://bitbucket.org/nuttx/apps/issues?status=new=open As new issues, I think the PMC should review and dispose of each. Those that are worth retaining can come into whatever bug tracking the PMC opts for in Apache. I am assuming that the PMC will have some triage for issues(?) But that workflow has not yet been agreed upon. There are another set of issues that I carry in a file call TODO in the repository. These should all be folded together. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
I imagine that it will take a month or two to get the GitHub repositories ready for prime time. The physical transfer shouldn’t take that long, fixing up all the headers and licenses may take longer but that’s OK when using the work in progress disclaimer, you can makes incubating ASF release that don’t fully comply with ASF policy when including that disclaimer. Yes, releasing with a disclaimer should work and cut the transition period down to a few weeks. For that transition time, I am not thinking about physically moving the repositories. That should be quick. But getting the organization and workflow in place to manage commits will take a little time. Everyone is new at this except me and I am the bad example. with changes pulled into the Apache Github until such time that support can transition seamlessly to GitHub. Im not sure how easy that’s going to be, generally infra have made a single transfer and I’m not aware of any projects that tried this approach. It would require some discussion with infra to see what’s possible here. If it is not possible to automate this, then changes originated from old retiring Bitbucket could be handled as normal PRs. That is not unusual. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Hello, It is our intention to use the Apache GitHub. I have been using Bitbucket for a few years and have resisted moving to GitHub. I like Bitbucket only because I know how to use it (My favorite tools are always the ones I know how to use). But GitHub is the plan of record if NuttX is accepted as a podling. I do have some question about the transition. NuttX is a very active project with a large user base. We have to both (1) modify the code base to conform to licensing and other requirements, but also (2) continue to support the community with quality releases. I imagine that it will take a month or two to get the GitHub repositories ready for prime time. During that time, I think that the Bitbucket/BSD repositories should continue with business as usual with changes pulled into the Apache Github until such time that support can transition seamlessly to GitHub. Does that seem reasonable? We may be somewhat different from other podlings because of the state and maturity of the code. Greg On 11/28/2019 9:04 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, Over on the google groups I saw some comments about the use of GitHub. While most ASF projects have moved that way it not a requirement to use. You could use svn [1] or git at Apache and be hosted on the ASF servers. You can even be hosted at the ASF and on GitHub [1]. Committers are not forced to use GitHub if they don't want to. Staying at bitbucket is probably not an option, but you could talk to Infra to see if it was possible. Thanks, Justin 1. https://svn.apache.org/viewvc 2. https://gitbox.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Hi, Justin, Duo And on the initial committers, the plan is to invite more people during the incubating time. I’d strongly suggest you add more people to that initial list, there’s a chance the proposal may not be accepted by the IPMC because of that, but I’d like to hear what other IPMC members think about that before deciding. That certainly will not be a problem. There are several long time contributors who should be (and want to be) on the IPMC but we thought that three was the better, simpler starting number. ... I noticed one other thing in there that NuttX name is trademarked. Is the project willing too hand over that trademark to the ASF? I hold the trademarks and, yes, they will be granted to the ASF as per the Proposal. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Hi, Justin, Where do you currently place releases? Your release process is likely to need to change as at the ASF releases are made by the (P)PMC voting on them, and in the case of incubating projects the IPMC voting on them before they can be released. Yes, I have been following general@incubator.apache.org for a week or so now so I can see there there are differences. The releases I did were still a substantial amount of work. I did releases once every two months. Most of the work was developing readable, functional descriptions of changes from GIT history. The project is very active. In a 2-3 month time period, there will be 1000-3000 commits so that is a huge effort. The releases were less formal but still very strict. The (old) releases were tags in the the repositories. I kept the ReleaseNotes and tarballs on on both SourceForge (which NuttX originally started) and on Bitbucket at: https://sourceforge.net/projects/nuttx/files/nuttx/ and https://bitbucket.org/nuttx/nuttx/downloads/. I kept only the latest releases online. There are a few, very old 4-clause BSD files in the C library (leveraged from old, old BSD C library files). Given the University of California, Berkeley rescinded the 4 clause BSD licenses these files should be OK. [5] I’ll see if I can track down the Apache Mynewt discussion about that. Then we should be in good shape. It also occurs to me that that there are a few non-standard BSD licenses from silicon vendors. They have four clauses, the standard three plus one that states that the code can only be used on the vendor's silicon. For me that is not an issue because the code is hardware specific and applies only to the vendor's silicon anyway. So it states only the obvious. But I should mention that too. Given you have compatible licenses what was the issue? Just the perceived complexity of the ALv2 license you mentioned or another issue? Mynewt had some quite complex licensing issues to sort out that required a number of different approaches, but is a good example of what can be done. Probably my lack of understanding of Apache license at the time. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal
Hi, Justin, It is good to meet you. Thank you for taking the time to respond. - Apache has a no dictator rule (friendly or otherwise), given there’s a person who may be in that role currently in the project, are they fine with giving up control to the rest of the community? Yes, I am fine with giving up control. I have been doing this for a very long time (probably daily for 15 years) and I am perfectly happy with others taking the lead. So far all of the people who have been interested are of the highest technical caliber and I have complete confidence that they can share the leadership roles. - The contributors may need to sign ICLAs. Given the number of people involved and the age of the project, if this ia required, it might be difficult. Some of the files are so old that it may not be possible to even contact all of the authors. I am the committer on all files and also listed as the author in the CM systems up to a few years ago (other people are given credit only in ChangeLogs and ReleaseNotes). Most have given copyright rights to me. Is it the author, the committer, or the copyright holder that matters here? - Given the large number of committers, I expected the initial committer list to be much larger, have you considered inviting all of the major committers? No one but I can commit to the existing repositories so I am the committer of everything. The names are not actually committers, but authors from the git commit --author= argument. In the early years CVS and SVN were used and in the early GIT years, I did not yet know about the --author= option. So you can clearly see when I discovered --author= in the data at: https://bitbucket.org/nuttx/nuttx/addon/bitbucket-graphs/graphs-repo-page#!graph=contributors=d90bf438-7869-4921-8926-fd25b0901043=c=weeks Maybe around 2015? - What does the community as a whole think abut this move? I can see this here [1], but I was a little surprised there wasn’t more public discussion about this. Is there consensus that they want to join the ASF and understand what that means? I have only heard positive things lately. There was some grumbling about changing the licenses some time back, but I think we are past that. Many people had the mistaken impression that the Apache license in some way put more burden on the end-user. The complexity of the language used in the license is a barrier to many people. - Is the community aware of some of the issues they may encounter in moving to ASF infrastructure and doing things in an Apache Way? (release process usually being the main difference). They are aware superficially but I don't think most appreciate the full implications. If there were not a full PMC supporting the project then it would be a problem for me as well. With the PMC we should be able to share the load. I have done 133 releases of NuttX alone. I am hoping to be replaced with a more Apache-savvy release manager. I would prefer to be this assistant, advisor / helper / mentor on most of the PMC issues. - I notice you mention BSD-4 cause in you list of licenses, this is actually Category X and not compatible with the ALv2 license. However if it is what I think it is, it easy to work around (as we did for Mynewt). There are a few, very old 4-clause BSD files in the C library (leveraged from old, old BSD C library files). Don't copyrights have a shelf life like patents? I am sure that these are too old to be an issue because the copyrights have expired anyway. This should be all of them: $ find . -name *.c | xargs grep " California, Berkeley" ./fs/nfs/rpc_clnt.c: * University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. 4. Neither the ./libs/libc/stdio/legacy_dtoa.c: * California, Berkeley and its contributors. ./libs/libc/stdio/lib_libdtoa.c: * California, Berkeley and its contributors. ./libs/libc/stdlib/lib_bsearch.c: * California, Berkeley and its contributors. ./libs/libc/stdlib/lib_qsort.c: * California, Berkeley and its contributors. $ find . -name *.h | xargs grep " California, Berkeley" ./fs/nfs/rpc.h: * California, Berkeley and its contributors. Six files. That is basically just the RPC logic in NFS client and some pieces of the C library. bsearch() and qsort() probably have replacements with other licenses. dtoa() probably does not. If the proposal does come to the Incubator, (and the project thinks I'm a good fit), I can help out as a mentor. I‘m mentored a number of IoT projects here at Apache, including Mynewt. That is very good news! Thank for that. I spoke with the Mynewt folk a couple of years back about incorporating some their IoT components into NuttX a few years back. Licensing was an obstacle then, but times are changing. Greg
