Re: DEP5: License section
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 02:04:43PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: NB! These comments are based on the latest published rev. 135 draft. If fixed in later drafts, I apologize for the noise. That would be revision 135 in svn, not bzr, I assume. Sure, it is http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=135 ...which seems to be a verbatim copy of http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 ...which is the canonical URL for the topic of this discussion. Go to http://bzr.debian.org/scm/loggerhead/dep/dep5/trunk/annotate/head:/dep5.mdwn to see the current revision in bzr. (Not sure why this is so hard to find.) Thanks. I saw your other post with this link right after my last post. Reason it is hard to find, I believe, is that it is missing from both official DEP5 http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ page and front http://dep.debian.net/ pages. I now realized (from its [howto] page) that the dep.debian.net is editable by all Debian Developers, and I have updated DEP5 references to point to the Bazaar VCS. The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale. @Lars: You may want to check if rendered layout is really as intended. It seems to me that some newlines should be preserved - which means the Markdown files should contain trailing double-space before the newline. If anyone - like me - wants to browse changes since last subversion commit (rev. 135), here's what worked for me: aptitude install git-svn git svn clone -r 135:HEAD svn://svn.debian.org/svn/dep/web cd web git diff --color-words `git svn find-rev r135`..HEAD deps/dep5.mdwn Kind regards, - Jonas [howto]: http://dep.debian.net/depdn-howto/ -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: License section
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale. Actually, I was quite happy with the way things were. The draft of DEP5 in svn was and is the version people should use, if they want to use DEP5 now. The version in bzr is the one I edit based on discussions, until it's stable enough to start suggesting people use. This way, there is little fear from changing the working draft, since nothing bad will happen. I would like this to continue. I appreciate the desire to help, but please revert your change. -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293030144.23963.84.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 02:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the Short name section, but _is_ listed in the Problematic Licenses section. So your proposal to add link to DEP5 is, I believe, tied to removing it from Problematic Licenses, and this we should discuss. No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes. I suggest to remove the whole section about problematic licenses: - If we indicate a reference form for the MIT license, then it has its place in the short name table. - Description of the Copyright field already specifies that it is where public domain should be mentionned. - The part about PHP explains that the reason why it is not in the list of short names; but I do not thing why we should make a justification for PHP in particular. I think I agree with Charles, and we should remove the section. Nobody seems to have objected to it. I agree with Ben that MIT is an ambiguous name, and Expat is better, when it is the one people mean. I'll add a note about this. -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293030752.23963.98.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: License section
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:02:24PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too - but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale. Actually, I was quite happy with the way things were. The draft of DEP5 in svn was and is the version people should use, if they want to use DEP5 now. The version in bzr is the one I edit based on discussions, until it's stable enough to start suggesting people use. This way, there is little fear from changing the working draft, since nothing bad will happen. I would like this to continue. I appreciate the desire to help, but please revert your change. Sorry - I thought the Bazaar repository represented the most recent draft of DEP5 - not just some semi-secret draft of a draft. I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style. If you want my changes reverted, go ahead and do that yourself. I have no desire to waste more time there. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: License section
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 16:50 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style. If you disagree with my reasons for doing edits in bzr and not pushing changes to svn all the time, you can argue those. You even have an excellent chance of convincing me that way. -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293034630.23963.116.ca...@havelock.lan
DEP5: reasons for not pushing Bazaar changes to Subversion
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:17:10PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ke, 2010-12-22 at 16:50 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style. If you disagree with my reasons for doing edits in bzr and not pushing changes to svn all the time, you can argue those. You even have an excellent chance of convincing me that way. Thanks for the invitation :-) I assume your reasons were that prhased in your previous post: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:02:24PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The draft of DEP5 in svn was and is the version people should use, if they want to use DEP5 now. The version in bzr is the one I edit based on discussions, until it's stable enough to start suggesting people use. This way, there is little fear from changing the working draft, since nothing bad will happen. I would like this to continue. If you have other or additional reasons, please clarify (apologies ahead for missing some reasons you might have already declared in the past). In my opinion, DEP5 is a work in progress, and as such discouraged for general consumption. This is indicated my its status as DRAFT. While in DRAFT status, we make no promises for e.g. backwards compatibility, and anyone choosing to take their chances and building upon a DRAFT is on their own if we choose to change things later. Therefore I disagree with your first argument that The draft of DEP5 in svn was and is the version people should use, if they want to use DEP5 now. In my opinion people should either use *any* version now or *no* version now, depending on whether they want something backed by us. I find it problematic to hide development, as it seems you deliberately (it seems now, due to your response when I fixed it) do when avoiding syncronization across VCSes. Did this help convince you to change style? Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: reasons for not pushing Bazaar changes to Subversion
Le Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:46:19PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : In my opinion, DEP5 is a work in progress, and as such discouraged for general consumption. This is indicated my its status as DRAFT. Dear Jonas, I concur. To my knowledge, it was never announced that the version in the SVN has the purpose to be stable, and when in the past I reminded people that DEP-5 is only a draft, they never complained, and never requested some stability during the drafting period. Working directly on the SVN repostory would make things simpler (except for non-DDs). This said, since the drafting period is soon to be completed, this debate probably comes too late. Despide my disagreement, I propose that we follow Lars's way. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101222171104.ga...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: DEP5: reasons for not pushing Bazaar changes to Subversion
Hi Charles, On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:11:04AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:46:19PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : In my opinion, DEP5 is a work in progress, and as such discouraged for general consumption. This is indicated my its status as DRAFT. I concur. To my knowledge, it was never announced that the version in the SVN has the purpose to be stable, and when in the past I reminded people that DEP-5 is only a draft, they never complained, and never requested some stability during the drafting period. Working directly on the SVN repostory would make things simpler (except for non-DDs). This said, since the drafting period is soon to be completed, this debate probably comes too late. Despide my disagreement, I propose that we follow Lars's way. If only for this specific process then I agree it is of little value. What made me waste time on it anyway was Lars' invitation to perhaps learn something. I would be honoured if succeeding in enlightening Lars whom I admire in many other areas. And the rest of us could benefit from this discussion as it might inspire the processing style of future DEPs. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
