Top-posting is just fine for replies where you're talking about the message in general. If you're replying to specific pieces, then yeah: in-line comments are best.
We have no rules against top-posting at Apache. We want to communicate rather than get all crazy about the *form* of the communication. Cheers, -g On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:04, Pedro F. Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > (Sorry for top posting.. for now it's just more practical.) > > Perhaps some of the migration stuff can be done > in the older OOo site? > - replacing the GNU iconv header is trivial. > - ICU needs to be updated to 4.8 before working on the > regex replacement. > > This depends on people with commit privileges there, > of course. > > Pedro. > > --- On Tue, 6/28/11, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> Hi Mathias, >> >> I don't know whether my approach is feasible either. >> I know we can >> set properties on files in SVN. You can retrieve them >> individually, >> but I don't see a way to query them, e.g., list all files >> that don't >> have a license property, or download all files that have a >> license >> property set to Apache 2.0. >> >> So fa, I think that you've been doing most of the code >> investigations. >> So I'd trust your judgement on what the next steps should >> be. Do you >> have any thoughts what work remains for the next 1 or 2 >> weeks? For >> example, is Oracle currently reviewing the additional SGA >> requesets? >> Or do we need to request this still? >> >> If I understand the rules at Apache (and it is certainly >> possible I >> have this wrong, but in that case Im sure someone will >> quickly correct >> me), a Podling can check in all of the code, including >> parts that are >> LGPL/GPL. We can make builds from that. But we are >> not permitted to >> make a releases or to graduate from a podling until we have >> gone >> through the IP checklist, including dealing with code that >> has an >> incompatible license. >> >> Of course, if you think you are close to having a "clean" >> version of >> OOo ready to check in, then I don't want to interrupt the >> fine work >> that you are already doing. But in that case I think >> it would help if >> we had a "roadmap" for the next couple of weeks, of what >> tasks >> remains, so others can help as well. >> >> -Rob >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On 27.06.2011 22:06, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> >> >> I think one approach would be to start with >> everything, which should >> >> presumably build, and then subtract. So check in >> everything from OOo >> >> into SVN, verify that it builds. That >> establishes a known state. >> >> Then verify the IP. Maybe use SVN properties to >> tag the files that >> >> were covered by Oracle's SGA. Anything not >> tagged needs to be >> >> investigated. Some things lead to requests for >> amending the Oracle >> >> SGA. When we get those, we indicate so in an SVN >> property. Some >> >> things will be GPL/LPGL. These get also get >> tagged with properties >> >> before being deleted. We continue to iterate >> until all files >> >> remaining in the repository have a property >> indicating that we've >> >> proven their provenance. Ideally, as things are >> removed, we do so in a >> >> way that we can always still build. So we start >> in a well-defined >> >> state and stay in a well-defined state. >> > >> > I can't judge whether this approach is feasible. If it >> is, I can provide >> > information about IP from a developers POV. The files >> that definitely are >> > not owned by Oracle are already listed in the OOo >> wiki. I tend to assume >> > that all other files are under Oracle's copyright >> until stated otherwise. >> > But again, I can't judge whether we can go this way. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Mathias >> > >> >> Rr >
