Yes, having the tree closed is a demerit for staff. And there are a few
others as well. The surprise, for example, and having a confidential
bug so people couldn't find out what was happening.
But I still want to thank Gerv for his efforts. Relicensing is a
monster project. It's got a lot of moving pieces, each one of which is
quite complex. We need someone with Gerv's energy and determination to
make this happen so we can work with other parts of the open source/free
software community.
It won'd be done perfectly, we can see that. But it will get done, and
we will take what we learn and apply it going forward. (Including this
on the landing roller-upper is such a natural idea I'm embarrassed that
I didn't think of it, especially after my insistence that everyone else
do so :-[ :-[ ) And there's certianly no harm in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
being taken to task when we make mistakes.
Mitchell
ps, you might think about a quick note to seamonkey all noting
Gervase Markham wrote:
> So I screwed up. I feel like the kid trying to make cakes to surprise
> Mum for when she comes home and her arriving to find me crying and
> covered in flour and eggs. I'm really sorry to everyone inconvenienced
> by the tree staying closed for so long.
>
> So, what happened?
>
> I attached the wrong version of the boilerplate to bug 98089 five days
> ago (MPL rather than NPL). SCC incorporated it into his script and
> didn't notice. He started his check in and got 2000 files in before
> someone else noticed.
>
> How did we fix it?
>
> We pulled two trees - one from before the checkin and one from after.
> We deleted the CVS dirs from the pre-tree using:
> find . -name CVS -print -exec rm -rf {} \;
> We then copied the entire remaining pre-tree into the post-tree using:
> cp -R -p mozilla/ /usr/src/new-mozilla/
> (-p preserves attributes.) This gave us the old code with the new CVS
> info. Then we did a
> cvs -n update
> to check we were only about to check in the right number of files
> (about 2300), and then checked in.
>
> What's the legal situation?
>
> The relicensing was illegal, so it's not permitted to use the files
> under the MPL terms, even if you did check them out during that time.
>
> What happens now?
>
> We try again tomorrow. Except this time, we do it from my tree, given
> that backing it out took about five minutes (as opposed to Scott's
> five hours estimate for checking it in.) Hopefully this should mean we
> don't have to hold the tree closed for very long.
>
> Gerv
>
>
