Hi Pat, As I mentioned several times, Due to not code generation issue but resource model alignment issue, I would not merge the Control Manager Code into master now.
Then, I think this discussion using Control Manager is not appropriate to do some action. If we are defining the general criteria how to handle generated code from tool, Thiago's opinion is a little bit strange because generated code should not be accepted even if tool is contributed due to code sync issue. BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:iotivity-dev- bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Lankswert, Patrick Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:50 AM To: 'iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org' Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager Uze, If we are in agreement, how do you want to proceed regarding pulling the control-manager into master? Pat -----Original Message----- From: Lankswert, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:49 PM To: Macieira, Thiago Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] Control Manager Thiago, I see your point. Pat -----Original Message----- From: Macieira, Thiago Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:40 PM To: Lankswert, Patrick Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager On Tuesday 27 January 2015 15:25:16 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > Thiago, > > I am not sure that we are disagreeing. I see only one public form, the > contributed code. > > Consider the case, that I contribute a bundle of source that may or > may not come from a code generator. If I contribute more source, does > it matter whether it came from a generator or from hand? I do not > think so, no matter where there code came from, it is my > responsibility to make the source code as a contribution suitable for > submission. If that means merging it with and preserving all of the > other contributions that were made since my last contributions, that is what I must do. > > In the above scenario, the tool is irrelevant, yes? The difference is what you're modifying and whether you're following the spirit of the definition. For example, if I use my IDE to generate the skeleton of a new class, even though they're generated, the new files are the preferred form of modification. I won't regenerate them again. But I am allowed to use the tool again to generate more new classes. Similarly for us, we can use the tool again to generate new code, but we cannot use the tool to update the sources that were contributed before. That would be, at least, a violation of the spirit of the Open Source Definition and is probably enough to get us kicked out of Debian package repositories. So I am recommending a hardline stance on this: it's ok to generate once, but then no one uses the tool again on the same files. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
