On 10/23/2013 06:32 AM, Michael Basnight wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Michael Basnight wrote:
>
>> Top posting cuz im a baller. We will get this fixed today. PS clint i like
>> the way you think ;)
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53176/
>>
>
> Now that this is merged, and the
On Oct 22, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Michael Basnight wrote:
> Top posting cuz im a baller. We will get this fixed today. PS clint i like
> the way you think ;)
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53176/
>
Now that this is merged, and there is no stable/havana for clients, Ive got a
question. What
Top posting cuz im a baller. We will get this fixed today. PS clint i like the
way you think ;)
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53176/
On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2013-10-21 17:09:41 -0700:
>>
>> On 10/21/2013 10:44 PM, Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2013-10-21 17:09:41 -0700:
>
> On 10/21/2013 10:44 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2013-10-21 13:45:21 -0700:
> >
> > If you don't know who the copyright holders are, you cannot know that
> > the license being granted i
On 21/10/13 19:45, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/20/2013 09:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
[...]
OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the first
patch to a repository is probably a sustainable overhead. And it's
probably ame
On 22 October 2013 20:39, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:19 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I agree, it is painful, though it is a necessary pain. Debian has always
>> been strict with copyright stuff. This should be seen as a freeness Q/A,
>> so that we make sure everything is
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:19 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 04:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >>> In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for?
> >>
On 10/22/2013 02:12 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-10-22 01:45:13 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
>> The main problem I was facing was that troveclient has a few files
>> stating that HP was the sole copyright holder, when it clearly was
>> not (since I have discussed a bit with s
On 10/22/2013 04:45 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> By "improve clarity", you mean "compile an accurate list of all
> copyright holders"? Why is this useful information?
>
> Sure, we could also "improve clarity" by compiling a list of all the
> cities in the world where some OpenStack code has been a
On 10/22/2013 08:09 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> b) Thomas should put in debian/copyright what is in our headers, and
> should consider them, as they are in our source tarballs, to be correct
> c) If Thomas, or anyone else, considers our header attribution to be
> incorrect, he or she should submit a
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:09 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 04:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Talk to the Trove developers and politely ask them whether the copyright
> > notices in their code reflects what they see as the reality.
> >
> > I'm sure it would help them if you pointed
On 10/22/2013 04:48 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for?
>>
>> At least avoid pain and reject when uploading to the Debian NEW
On 10/22/2013 05:06 AM, Michael Basnight wrote:
> so if this is sufficient, ill fix the copyright headers.
Please do (and backport that to 2013.2...)! :)
Thomas
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.or
On 10/22/2013 04:55 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Talk to the Trove developers and politely ask them whether the copyright
> notices in their code reflects what they see as the reality.
>
> I'm sure it would help them if you pointed out to them some significant
> chunks of code from the commit hist
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:09 +0100, Monty Taylor wrote:
> The last thing we need to do is validate in any manner that somehow the
> CLA makes our Apache Licensed Free Software more Free or more Valid than
> if we did not have our useless CLA.
Agree with this. My simplified way of thinking about th
On Oct 21, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 10:44 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2013-10-21 13:45:21 -0700:
>>> On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700:
On 10/21/2013 10:44 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2013-10-21 13:45:21 -0700:
>> On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700:
On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote:
Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2013-10-21 13:45:21 -0700:
> On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700:
> > > On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > > However, even as a strong suppor
On Oct 21, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 10/20/2013 09:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
>>> [...]
OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the f
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:45 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/20/2013 09:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
> > [...]
> >> OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the first
> >> patch to a repository is probably a sustainable
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:55 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for?
>
> At least avoid pain and reject when uploading to the Debian NEW queue...
I'm sorry, that is downstream Debian pai
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700:
> > On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would
> > > like to know more about the FTP m
On 2013-10-22 01:45:13 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> The main problem I was facing was that troveclient has a few files
> stating that HP was the sole copyright holder, when it clearly was
> not (since I have discussed a bit with some the dev team in
> Portland, IIRC some of them are
On 10/21/2013 09:28 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> In other words, what exactly is a list of copyright holders good for?
At least avoid pain and reject when uploading to the Debian NEW queue...
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenSt
On 10/20/2013 09:38 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> Part of the issue is that historically the project has held a
> laissez faire position that claiming copyright on contributions is
> voluntary, and that if you don't feel your modifications to a
> particular file are worthy of copyright (due to trivia
On 10/20/2013 09:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
> [...]
>> OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the first
>> patch to a repository is probably a sustainable overhead. And it's
>> probably amenable to automation - a commit h
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2013-10-20 02:25:43 -0700:
> On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> > However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would
> > like to know more about the FTP masters issue. I dialog with them, as
> > folks who deal with thi
On 10/20/2013 06:00 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> I know the Foundation's got work underway to improve the affiliate
> map from the member database, so it might be possible to have some
> sort of automated job which proposes changes to a copyright holders
> list in each project by running a query wit
On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 08:24 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2013 05:49 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >
> >> I suggest that we just put Copyright headers back in the source files.
> >> That will make Debian's licensecheck work fairly au
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-10-20 20:57:56 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Well, good luck finding all the copyright holders for such a large and
> > old project. It's not really practical in this case, unfortunately.
>
> To a great extent, the same g
On 2013-10-20 13:00:31 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> automated job which proposes changes to a copyright holders list
> in each project by running a query with the author and date of
> each commit looking for new affiliations
[...]
Though the more I think about this, it would be com
On 2013-10-20 20:57:56 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Well, good luck finding all the copyright holders for such a large and
> old project. It's not really practical in this case, unfortunately.
To a great extent, the same goes for projects a quarter the size and
age of the Linux kernel--d
On 2013-10-20 22:20:25 +1300 (+1300), Robert Collins wrote:
[...]
> OTOH registering one's nominated copyright holder on the first
> patch to a repository is probably a sustainable overhead. And it's
> probably amenable to automation - a commit hook could do it locally
> and a check job can assert
On 10/20/2013 05:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/l/linux/linux_3.11.5-1_copyright
>
> Not even the kernel itself has a complete list of all the copyright owners.
>
> best,
> Joe
Well, good luck finding all the copyright holders for such a large a
On Oct 20, 2013 11:29 AM, "Robert Collins"
wrote:
>
> On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> > However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would
> > like to know more about the FTP masters issue. I dialog with them, as
> > folks who deal with this issue and its r
On 20 October 2013 02:35, Monty Taylor wrote:
> However, even as a strong supporter of accurate license headers, I would
> like to know more about the FTP masters issue. I dialog with them, as
> folks who deal with this issue and its repercutions WAY more than any of
> us might be really nice.
D
On 20 October 2013 04:50, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> Well, this is still a fuzzy topic. We have a lot of contributions
> and know who the authors are, but not necessarily who the copyright
s/authors/submitters/. I've heard (though I lack direct evidence) that
some teams funnel their patches through
On 10/19/2013 11:50 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-10-19 23:29:28 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Though the Debian FTP masters seems to insist on having correct
>> copyright holders in debian/copyright, and I am a bit lost after the 2
>> rejects I just had.
>
> Well, this is still a
On 2013-10-19 23:29:28 +0800 (+0800), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Though the Debian FTP masters seems to insist on having correct
> copyright holders in debian/copyright, and I am a bit lost after the 2
> rejects I just had.
Well, this is still a fuzzy topic. We have a lot of contributions
and know wh
On 10/19/2013 08:24 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2013 05:49 AM, Michael Still wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest that we just put Copyright headers back in the source files.
>>> That will make Debian's licensecheck work fairly automatically.
On 10/19/2013 08:29 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 10/19/2013 08:22 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2013 04:52 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2013-10-18 23:01:50 -0700:
Hi there,
TroveClient just got rejected by Debian FTP masters. R
On 10/19/2013 08:22 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 10/19/2013 04:52 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2013-10-18 23:01:50 -0700:
Hi there,
TroveClient just got rejected by Debian FTP masters. Reply from Luke
Faraone is below.
In general, I would strongly advise t
On 10/19/2013 05:49 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
>> I suggest that we just put Copyright headers back in the source files.
>> That will make Debian's licensecheck work fairly automatically. A single
>> file that tries to do exactly what debian
On 10/19/2013 04:52 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2013-10-18 23:01:50 -0700:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> TroveClient just got rejected by Debian FTP masters. Reply from Luke
>> Faraone is below.
>>
>> In general, I would strongly advise that a clean COPYRIGHT-HOLDER
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I suggest that we just put Copyright headers back in the source files.
> That will make Debian's licensecheck work fairly automatically. A single
> file that tries to do exactly what debian/copyright would do seems a bit
> odd.
The problem he
Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2013-10-18 23:01:50 -0700:
>
> Hi there,
>
> TroveClient just got rejected by Debian FTP masters. Reply from Luke
> Faraone is below.
>
> In general, I would strongly advise that a clean COPYRIGHT-HOLDER file
> is created with the copyright holders in th
Hi there,
TroveClient just got rejected by Debian FTP masters. Reply from Luke
Faraone is below.
In general, I would strongly advise that a clean COPYRIGHT-HOLDER file
is created with the copyright holders in them. Why? Because it is hard
to distinguish between authors and copyright holders, whi
47 matches
Mail list logo
