Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster's proposal to adopt GPL cure enforcement

[Amar Tumballi]

Update:

We already have more than 20 unique votes for this change. We will keep
this open for another 2 weeks (till next maintainer's meeting), and if
there are no concerns by that time from anyone, prefer to merge the patch.

Regards,
Amar

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Amar Tumballi  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Following the lines of Red Hat's announcement for commitment for better
> open-source model, along with many other companies (lead by
> Facebook/Google/IBM) [1], Gluster project is also proposing to have the
> COMMITMENT statement in its project.
>
> While we discuss about the same here, a RFC patch is submitted to review.
> [2]
>
> [1] - https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/fostering-greater-open-
> source-development
> [2] - https://review.gluster.org/19902
>
> Feel free to comment, add your valuable feedback either to this thread or
> to the patch directly. We will only accept the patch with more than 25 +1s.
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>



-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] Coding Standard: Automation

[Amar Tumballi]

All,

We are left with < 24hrs before branch out as Shyam called out in another
thread (4.1 Scope), As 'coding standard' is a blocker for that, I would
like all of you to add the sample code snippet you like to run it through
coding standard to nigel's repo, and open an issue (or PR) to fix
.clang-format to make it closer to coding standard we agree upon.

-Amar

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Nigel Babu  wrote:

> I hope I've made the changes that Jeff's recommended in the first comment
> correctly[1]. Xavi, I've not pulled in any of your suggestions yet, because
> I figured you'd want to see the output and send suggestions.
>
> Please send pull requests to the .clang-format file (and only that file)
> for anything I've missed or anything you think needs changing. I'll do the
> re-generation so we're not stuck with merge conflicts.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/nigelbabu/clang-format-sample/commit/
> 733394939034ff9baaf579e7f327bdd078f204ef
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Planning to postpone this meeting, and idea is to work in more
>> collaborated way off-line, instead of being in a meeting. we believe it
>> would give everyone (those who didn't attend) too a fair chance to submit
>> their opinion.
>>
>> For now, we will continue with Nigel's clang-format repo for this to
>> experiment with different options. [https://github.com/nigelbabu/
>> clang-format-sample]
>>
>> The plan on this is to go with a sample gluster file, which would have
>> complex macros, a call with STACK_WIND/UNWIND function call. A switch case,
>> a for loop, a do/while loop. Also a list_for_each loop. Have locked region.
>> A sample 4-5 level depth if/else checks, etc.
>>
>> With this sample file, having the .clang-format decided as either
>> Chromium or Mozilla as a base (with IndentSize set to 4 space), would be a
>> good start. We will also make sure to have all the agreed points in
>> bugzilla, and add it to clang-format file, and also regenerate the sample
>> file. So, everyone gets an idea how the target file would look like. If
>> everyone agrees, by the end of the week, we will have an agreement, so we
>> can go ahead and make this possible before 4.1 release branching. (So, our
>> backport efforts will be reduced drastically).
>>
>> -Amar
>>
>> Coding Standard: Automation
>> BJ: https://bluejeans.com/205933580
>> 
>>
>> We will talk and come to agreement on https://bugzilla.redhat.com
>> /show_bug.cgi?id=1564149
>> 
>>
>> It was agreed that we will go ahead with format change automation, so,
>> goal of this meeting is to pick the right options.
>>
>> Goal is to get gluster's own `.clang-format` file. Once that file is
>> agreed upon, we will go ahead and create a job for fixing the patches for
>> format, and also fix the codebase to get the formats.
>>
>> Pre-work if you are interested, read about :
>> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html
>> 
>>
>> Also pick a gluster file which would pass through agreed format, so you
>> can validate how it looks after formatting. Instead of waiting for this to
>> happen, we can see is this good enough?
>>
>> Few things we mostly agree:
>>
>>  !AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine !AllowShortLoopsOnASingleLine 
>> BraceWrapping(!AfterControlStatement) BraceWrapping(AfterFunction) 
>> BraceWrapping(!BeforeElse) ColumnLimit(80) IndentWidth(4) 
>> PointerAlignment(PAS_Right) SpaceBeforeParens(SBPO_Always) TabWidth(8) 
>> UseTab(UT_Never)
>>
>>
>>   BinPackParameters=true
>>
>>   AlignEscapedNewLinesLeft=false
>>
>>  AlignConsecutiveDeclarations=true
>>
>>   AlignConsecutiveAssignments=true
>>
>>  AlwaysBreakAfterReturnType = true
>>
>>
>>
>> More options which we can discuss:
>>
>> !IndentCaseLabelsSpaceBeforeParens = ControlStatements
>>
>>
>>
>> I propose two steps as preventing history:
>>
>> * The commit before the mass-format-change commit will maintained as a
>> separate branch. (No cost of space, but everyone clearly knows where to go
>> for history, when git blame pointing to the commit of mass changes).
>> * Similarly, to get history of pre-2009 (currently 'historic' repo), I
>> personally feel moving  https://github.com/amarts/glus
>> terfs/commits/git-based-history-from-historic
>> ,
>> as a separate branch in gluster/glusterfs would help. Again, today people
>> has to switch repositories for this.
>> *When*
>> Mo

[Gluster-devel] Coverity covscan for 2018-05-03-cfa4ff14 (master branch)

[staticanalysis]

GlusterFS Coverity covscan results are available from
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2018-05-03-cfa4ff14
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel