[Incubator] gvSIG incubation push
Manuel Madrid
mmadrid at gvsig.com
Tue Oct 14 05:56:11 PDT 2014
Hi Jody,
It seems that we found a volunteer who is willing to help us reviewing
the missing files of code. I will let you know when the work is finished.
Thanks for your help.
Best,
Manuel.
On 07/10/14 18:00, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I understand, I am not sure we want to soften our stance on reviewing
> code (we have already softened things by asking for only a review
> rather than a fix). Do you think a regex search (or an automated tool)
> could help you cut down the files that need attention? Only other
> thing I could say is to open a bug ticket for each of the four
> projects - indicating that the status is unknown.
>
> Deepening on how your team functions it may be easier to get a
> volunteer to fix an "out standing issue" then to volunteer for
> incubation :) Actually with your great gvSig partner program you may
> be able to ask a community member or organisation who does not
> normally program to help out.
> --
> Jody
>
>
> Jody Garnett
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Manuel Madrid <mmadrid at gvsig.com
> <mailto:mmadrid at gvsig.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jody,
>
> Thank you very much for taking a look at our provenance review and
> for this detailed description.
>
> Within the 3% of the code that still has not been reviewed we
> could find basically two cases:
> 1) Files copied from other projects (like your third point).
> 2) Portions of code copied from other projects.
>
> In general we can assume that, in the first case, we kept the
> original headers and, in the second case, we included in our
> header a mention saying that it includes portions of code from the
> original project. We are pretty sure that this is Ok in at least
> three of the four not reviewed projects. The problem is that we
> cannot guarantee that without reviewing all the files.
>
> Best,
> Manuel.
>
>
> On 01/10/14 19:08, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> We all understand the release cycle :) And really hope you are
> close. Reading your email I am not sure I understand the
> difference between core source code that has been reviewed and
> the 3% remaining external code?
>
> I have experience of three similar things - perhaps you could
> tell me which one you mean?
>
> 1) pending code: GeoServer maintains a "community" folder in
> our source code for experiments and new developers. We do not
> build this source code into our binary and it has not had its
> license and headers reviewed. When a module is "ready" a
> member of the GeoServer team will review and add it into the
> main codebase - but really it is a play area for developer out
> reach. The source code is available for download - but has not
> been checked by the GeoServer team (and is not being compiled
> and distributed by the GeoServer team).
>
> So if your 3% is like this - no worries. Explain in your
> provenance review that this 3% is a work in progress and will
> be checked before being distributed.
>
> 2) External dependency: GeoTools uses the Apache Commons
> library - we checked that the apache license worked with LGPL
> for incubation, but we did not download the apache commons
> library source code and check each file. The GeoTools team
> trusts the apache foundation to sort that out, if they make a
> mistake we may need to do something about it but we will deal
> with it when the time comes.
>
> So if your 3% is like this you are doing too much work - only
> check what your team manages. If you build it check it, if you
> get it from maven central check the license works out (as you
> do not want to annoy another team).
>
> 3) Copying a file from another project. GeoTools has several
> files that have been copied from Apache - and needed to ensure
> they had the original Apache License header on top of them.
> This is why when you look at our license page
> <http://docs.geotools.org/latest/userguide/welcome/license.html>
> you can see a note about the library being LGPL ... along with
> a few other files that have been provided to us.
>
> Reading your provenance-review
> <http://www.gvsig.org/plone/projects/gvsig-desktop/docs/devel/gvsig-devel-guide/2-1-0/provenance-review> -
> I think this is what you mean. There was no need to seperate
> out into an external project (as long as the license is
> compatible). Just leave the origional headers as is. Depending
> on the license terms you may need to make a note in your user
> docs - as was done in the GeoTools license page.
>
> If you need to modify the files a bit after making a copy (say
> to patch an issue) you can get an interesting header example -
> as shown in "Example from Tutorial or Magazine Code" from
> GeoServer
> <https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/Expectations-and-Examples>.
>
> /*
> * Copyright (c) 2007 - 2013 OpenPlans - www.openplans.org
> <http://www.openplans.org>. All rights reserved.
> * Copyright 2003 Jayson Falkner (jayson at jspinsider.com
> <mailto:jayson at jspinsider.com>)
>
> * This code is from "Servlets and JavaServer pages; the
> J2EE Web Tier",
> * http://www.jspbook.com. You may freely use the code
> both commercially
> * and non-commercially. If you like the code, please pick
> up a copy of
> * the book and help support the authors, development of
> more free code,
> * and the JSP/Servlet/J2EE community.
> *
> * Modified by David Winslow <dwinslow at openplans.org
> <mailto:dwinslow at openplans.org>> on 2007-12-13.
> */
>
> So if your 3% is like this don't worry, leave the original
> headers alone and you are good to go.
>
> Jody Garnett
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Manuel Madrid
> <mmadrid at gvsig.com <mailto:mmadrid at gvsig.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> Good to hear from you again and thank you very much for
> being willing to help us again. We are really almost done.
> Let me give you a general view of the status of the
> incubation process:
>
> We made a big effort some months ago in order to finish
> the main pending task: the code provenance review. At this
> moment it has been completely reviewed three core projects
> which together represent more than 97% of the core source
> code. Also, within the rest of the core projects (less
> that 3% of the total code) we reviewed the license
> compatibility with external libraries so there is only
> missing the review of external code and file headers of
> this small part of the code. We identified and fixed all
> the issues that we detected within the reviewed source code.
>
> Regarding the rest of requirements, in principle there are
> only two missing documents: the release guide and the
> release testing checklist. We could provide those
> documents in a short term but, to be honest, unfortunately
> we are not going to be able to review the provenance of
> the missing 3% of the code at this moment, as all our
> resources are completely focused in the final release of
> gvSIG 2.1. We really hope that this is not a critical issue.
>
> You will find all the information related with the gvSIG
> incubation process in the following links:
>
> - Incubation Status:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Status
> - Incubation Checklist:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist
> - Provenance review:
> http://www.gvsig.org/plone/projects/gvsig-desktop/docs/devel/gvsig-devel-guide/2-1-0/provenance-review
>
> We would very much appreciate if you can review this and
> let us know if providing the documents I mentioned would
> be enough to get ready for the graduation.
>
> Of course I will be available for talking about this
> off-list if you want.
>
> Best,
> Manuel.
>
>
> On 01/10/14 09:39, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote:
>
> Hi Manuel and Jeff,
>
> I was thinking the exact same thing!
> It would be great to announce the graduation for the
> conference.
> Manuel, could we try to revive the process? We can
> talk off-list if you like!
>
> Sorry for not pushing too hard and thanks to Jeff for
> putting this forward.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dimitris
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20141014/9074a2bf/attachment.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list