Thanks @asmacdo. I made the PRs and linked to them in a comment on that issue: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3734#note-4
If anyone is able to go through and lgtm and possibly merge that would be good. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: > Ive created an issue to track this work. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3734 > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> With no blocking votes, one +0,and five +1's this pup has passed. Thank >> you to everyone who contributed to this PUP, especially @richardfontana. >> >> As a next step, we need to add the COMMITMENT file to all the right >> repos. If anyone wants to do that feel free and maybe reply on-thread, >> otherwise I'll do it when I'm back from PTO on Wed. >> >> https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0005.md >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ina Panova >>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Dana Walker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Dana Walker >>>>> >>>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +0 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Robin Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Voting closes June 2nd. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have read this through and appreciate @richardfontana's >>>>>>> response/explanation to questions: https://github.com/pulp/pups/p >>>>>>> ull/9#issuecomment-393317027 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Through feedback on the issue and discussion in #pulp-dev, one >>>>>>>>> small language revision [0] was added to PUP5 [1]. I believe we are >>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>> to call a vote. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Voting for PUP5 is open and will close on June 2nd. Please respond >>>>>>>>> with your vote to this thread if you feel so inclined (lazy >>>>>>>>> consensus). >>>>>>>>> Barring any -1's cast, PUP5 will be merged on June 4th. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/richardfontana/pups/commit/99fcd35e1cc396 >>>>>>>>> a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333 >>>>>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Brian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @ipanova, I think of the core team as only maintaining pulp/pulp >>>>>>>>>> and pulp/devel so I limit the scope of this to those repos only. I >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> pulp_rpm (or any plugin) could adopt the CCRC without a PUP by >>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>>>>> the "Displaying the CRCC section >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files#diff-e883d39d60672a684862d3cef971e94eR106>" >>>>>>>>>> in their own repo. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @dawalker, relicensing to GPLv3 is an alternative. It's not a bad >>>>>>>>>> option, but it would be more complicated. Since every committer with >>>>>>>>>> even a >>>>>>>>>> single line of current code is a copyright holder of the codebase, >>>>>>>>>> and it >>>>>>>>>> would require a 100% signoff from all copyright holders, in practice >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> can be difficult. Also someone may not even use that email anymore >>>>>>>>>> so it >>>>>>>>>> may not even be possible. I haven't assessed how many Pulp3 >>>>>>>>>> committers we >>>>>>>>>> have currently for the Pulp3 codebase. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was recently part of a relicensing which failed >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25>, >>>>>>>>>> but it shows what the process looks like: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25 If >>>>>>>>>> someone wants to champion switching to GPLv3 and create an issue >>>>>>>>>> like that >>>>>>>>>> and get all the signoffs I'm not opposed to relicensing to GPLv3 >>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>> adopting the CRCC. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Dana Walker <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other than the noted point that it takes time, is there any >>>>>>>>>>> reason why Pulp should stay on the current license instead of >>>>>>>>>>> moving to >>>>>>>>>>> GPLv3 (one of the stated alternatives in this PUP)? I don't know >>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>> about the differences currently, but it strikes me that our new >>>>>>>>>>> Pulp 3 >>>>>>>>>>> using Python 3 would be a good fit for moving to a new license as >>>>>>>>>>> well that >>>>>>>>>>> has taken various things such as this enforcement issue into >>>>>>>>>>> account and >>>>>>>>>>> evolved over time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --Dana >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dana Walker >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Ina Panova < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To make a concrete example to prove my understating: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since pulp_rpm is maintained by core team we could adopt this >>>>>>>>>>>>> change, meanwhile pulp_deb is beyond our control and we( core >>>>>>>>>>>>> team) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> enforce or influence this change. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>>>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Pulp Update Proposal (PUP) pull request has been opened by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the go-to-lawyer for the Pulp community, Richard Fontana. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PUP is PUP5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0]. I don't want to paraphrase it here, so please read it [0] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested to understand what it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am proposing a period of questions/discussion via the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list/PR and then a call for a vote according to the process. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are welcome, please ask. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> # Timeline >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today - May 18th mailing list and PR discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 18th - formally call for a vote which would end 12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calendar days from then May 30th >>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 30th - Merge or reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> # FAQs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this relicensing Pulp? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It's still GPLv2. This adopts a procedural enforment >>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach within the existing license. See @rfontana's response >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-384523020 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do all prior contributors need to sign off on this change? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because it's not a relicensing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this affect core, plugins, or both? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This PR is only scoped to affect the GPLv2 codebases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained by the core team. Plugins make their own decisions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without PUPs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially this would be pulp/pulp, and as other GPLv2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repositories are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained by the core team, it would apply to this in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
