Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:08:13PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with > copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo > would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml > and should I leave

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my > contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we > switch to this? > The DCO doesn't change your rights at all, or change the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/27/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux >> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted >> otherwise. >> > > Stepping back,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating > it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the > intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it. +1 :-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux > kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted > otherwise. > Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Matthias Maier wrote: >> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source >> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 > I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There > is no readme/header, or other indicator stating

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under >> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: >> > >> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, >> >> I'd think

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under > trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the > "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC > LICENSE." The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the > >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider > >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > > So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" That's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed >> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source > tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this. Not everything in the linux repository falls under

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under trademark law

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> This is from the last policy draft: > >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml > > > Why redraft the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/26/2016 04:02 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > I did suggest that we probably should ban this header until we > actually have a DCO because it blurs the lines. However, it isn't Makes sense, at least strongly discourage, although it likely isn't too difficult to do a full ban on git push >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Under this interpretation, developers using this header to add other > peoples work to tree is making our use of DCO pointless. > > Because DCO has to be the person who *authored* the commit, not the > person who merely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:45:56 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > I don't think we need a git header for the purpose of saying that > something looks good to somebody else. If you commit something and it > doesn't work, we'll ask you to stop doing it. If you keep doing it > we'll take

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote: > > On October 23, 2016 11:29:49 PM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote: >>Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell >> napisał(a): >>>On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/24/2016 09:21 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote: > What would you call what I decribed, though; Acked? Acked-By and/or Reviewed-By (although we don't have a specific reviewer's statement in Gentoo (yet?)) -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On October 23, 2016 11:29:49 PM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote: >Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell > napisał(a): >>On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2016,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:29:49 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > How about Gentoo developers stopping to reuse things that have well-defined > meaning for something completely different? Patching the git tools to have a simple-to-use way to indicate the equivalent metadata welcome

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell napisał(a): >On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500 >>> Matthew Thode wrote: >> Does pram

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500 >> Matthew Thode wrote: > >>> Does pram allow you to pass options to git >>> am (signedoffby for instance)? > >> It doesn't presently

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> The last draft DCO was: >> Gentoo DCO 1.0 By making a contribution to this project, I certify >> that: (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> This is from the last policy draft: >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml > Why redraft the already-useful DCO that is out there for you to use > as-is: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > > > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo, > > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two. > > > > So I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

El mar, 18-10-2016 a las 23:13 +0200, Patrice Clement escribió: > Hello fellow Gentoo developers and subscribers of the gentoo-dev > mailing list, > > [...] Thanks a lot for your work! But, is there any place (an official wiki page from the project taking care of github mirror work) where all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo, > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two. > > So I think the intent for this is "X reviewed these changes for Gentoo > and takes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:15:11 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > > Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's work'. I suppose the > > commit itself is good enough for this but I personally prefer verbosity. > > It also calls out that it wasn't my work. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500 >> Matthew Thode wrote: > >>> Does pram allow you to pass options to git >>> am (signedoffby for instance)? >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/19/2016 07:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/19/2016 02:13 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: >> On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for >>> a Gentoo commit? >> >> Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/19/2016 02:13 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for >> a Gentoo commit? > > Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's work'. I suppose the > commit itself is good enough for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for > a Gentoo commit? Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's work'. I suppose the commit itself is good enough for this but I personally prefer verbosity. It also calls

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500 > Matthew Thode wrote: >> Does pram allow you to pass options to git >> am (signedoffby for instance)? > It doesn't presently allow arbitrary arguments, and it would > probably be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:13:26 +0200 Patrice Clement wrote: > In the case of Gentoo though, it makes no sense. We should strive for > keeping a clean and linear history. A DAG is what I would call linear history :) Merge commits preserve that structure, git log performs a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/19/2016 01:00 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > One of the downsides both the git-am and cherry-pick workflows are that > they invalidate or otherwise omit commit signatures. > > git-merge on the other hand does preserve the signature as the original > commit is intact, and the merge commit is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

One of the downsides both the git-am and cherry-pick workflows are that they invalidate or otherwise omit commit signatures. git-merge on the other hand does preserve the signature as the original commit is intact, and the merge commit is where the signature of the gentoo developer is introduced.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500 Matthew Thode wrote: > Does pram allow you to pass options to git > am (signedoffby for instance)? It doesn't presently allow arbitrary arguments, and it would probably be wise to avoid need for such arguments and prefer convention

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

I've been using the curl into git am method for a while now, it's nice to see it's not just me :D Does pram allow you to pass options to git am (signedoffby for instance)? -- -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

On 10/18/2016 08:03 PM, Benda Xu wrote: > > This will be an important reference. Please consider adding it into the > wiki after we reach a wider consensus on how to merge pull request on > github. It's been there for a long time:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

Hi Patrice, Patrice Clement writes: > [...] Very enjoyable write-up. I completely agree with you. This will be an important reference. Please consider adding it into the wiki after we reach a wider consensus on how to merge pull request on github. Benda signature.asc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

Patrice Clement wrote: > We should strive for keeping a clean and linear history. I agree with you. > Cherry-picking is not my go-to solution as far as I'm concerned. > It requires a bit of setup and is clearly tedious: you must know > in advance the full SHA-1 of commit(s) you want to

[gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

Hello fellow Gentoo developers and subscribers of the gentoo-dev mailing list, I've been wanting to write this email for a while but for some reason never got round to doing it due to lack of motivation and time. I will be discussing many topics in this email revolving around git essentially. I