On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello; > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rob Weir > ... >> >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> I'm sorry, Rob. Those files are toxic *for me*. I can't touch >> them in their present state. I also don't want to read them in their >> present state until the provenance and permissive licensing is dealt with. >>> >> >> The files are covered by an SGA, checked in by an IBM employee covered >> by an iCLA and a CCLA. That is a triple assurance. If the only >> thing that is holding you back from being productive with these files >> is the copyright header, then I'll make an extra effort to see if I >> can help you there. I wouldn't want you to be blocked for the lack of >> this. But I really wish you would have mentioned this before the >> day we're proposing graduation. The contribution of Symphony was made >> months ago. >> >>> What is irrelevant for you is not irrelevant for me. And you're not my >> lawyer. >>> >>> Offering to remove the files is bizarre. What is that, slash-dot bait? >>> >> >> No, I'm serious. If this is a blocking issue for anyone, I'm willing, >> able and happy to delete. I wouldn't want anyone concerned about >> "toxic files" in SVN. When Pedro had concerns with the Cat-b files >> in SVN he was praised for his "axe". I'm just offering to use >> mine as >> well. >> >> -Rob >> > > Who "praised" my axe? I recall *you* threatened to veto it :-P.
Yes, I did. And I've learned from my error. So in this case I'd seek lazy consensus first ;-) > And now that you bring back the issue, I still think the cat-B files have to > be > deleted *before* graduation. > Are there some still that you want to delete? Is anything stopping you? Is there a BZ issue for this? > The Symphony code is not relevant because none of it belongs to a release > yet. I do tend to agree that the code is only for reference and only IBM can > merge stuff. > There is some truth to that. When we agreed to merge the code slowly rather than rebasing it on Symphony, we turned this into a merge problem where only a subset of committers have knowledge, from their previous work, of what the "interesting" parts of the code to merge are. This is not a license issue, but just the practical reality of the who has the knowledge. The equally practical question we might ask ourselves is whether we want these engineers merging code into a tree that we'll actually be releasing, or spending their time updating headers in a tree that we will not be releasing? That is the prime reason for suggesting that we just delete the code if anyone thinks it is a blocking issue. Obviously the engineers from the Symphony team would still have access to this code and could continue their merging, piece by piece, all covered by their iCLA's and the IBM CCLA. > Pedro. > > ps. so far I have been the only one doing merges from AOO to Symphony ;). That is an odd direction to go, don't you think? -Rob
