[Incubator] gvSIG incubation push

Tue Oct 14 10:47:02 PDT 2014

Excellent! If they/you have any questions please ask on the incubation list
- or just make a note and keep going :)

Jody Garnett

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Manuel Madrid <mmadrid at gvsig.com> wrote:

>  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> 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. All
>> rights reserved.
>>      * Copyright 2003 Jayson Falkner (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> 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> 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
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Incubator mailing list
>>> 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/20141014/13e5a3dd/attachment-0001.html>