Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Leo Simons wrote: I just finished a sweep through our sources and updated those that still needed it. The record of the changes is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-457 So, does this mean that there's files in any of the tarballs listed at http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/download.html that have an incorrect license header? Incorrect might be too strong a word. IMO, "different" would describe it better. If so, you should be thinking about what to do with those releases -- like do a branch where you fix the headers and release new 4.1.2.2, 4.1.3.2 versions to replace them, or simply pull the 4.1.x releases and get 4.2 out quickly, or decide there really can't possibly be any problems for the users but add a warning to be safe, or successfully argue there's nothing that needs to be done, or whatever. I'd like to argue that nothing needs to be done :) The files are all licensed under the ASL, it's just that the text is subtly (but in my layman opinion not substantively) different from the most recent text at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html Oh, in that case I also think (IANAL, blah, blah) it should be ok. We've had a bunch of different source headers, and on average we haven't pulled releases over them. Thanks for clearing this up :-) - Leo
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
On 6/25/07, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had you happened to run RAT through the sources yet? No. I'm pretty comfortable with the review I just did but if you think it would be useful to run the tool we can look into it. Is there an easy way to run it? All I could find in the way of info on this RAT was this site: http://mojo.codehaus.org/rat-maven-plugin/index.html It looks like it requires Mave. We have no experience with Maven so I'm a little intimidated by what setting it all up might involve. If the goal is to check that every file has the appropriate license header at the top I suspect we can do that more quickly using grep or sed (which is what I did by hand). RAT's homepage is: http://code.google.com/p/arat/ It doesn't require Maven - folks on the general@ list can help handhold its usage. But, sed/grep is just fine too. Though, do expect Robert or some other RAT devs to run releases through there next time we conduct a release - if we're still here in the Incubator. -- justin
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Martin Sebor wrote: It got started but we never did go through all the files to check that we didn't miss any (which we of course did). I just finished a sweep through our sources and updated those that still needed it. The record of the changes is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-457 Had you happened to run RAT through the sources yet? No. I'm pretty comfortable with the review I just did but if you think it would be useful to run the tool we can look into it. Is there an easy way to run it? All I could find in the way of info on this RAT was this site: http://mojo.codehaus.org/rat-maven-plugin/index.html It looks like it requires Mave. We have no experience with Maven so I'm a little intimidated by what setting it all up might involve. If the goal is to check that every file has the appropriate license header at the top I suspect we can do that more quickly using grep or sed (which is what I did by hand). Martin
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
Leo Simons wrote: On Jun 23, 2007, at 10:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Leo Simons wrote: I also believe/hope the status file might need an update or perhaps two: In progress Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I'd hope that was finished a while ago :-) It got started but we never did go through all the files to check that we didn't miss any (which we of course did). :-( I just finished a sweep through our sources and updated those that still needed it. The record of the changes is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-457 So, does this mean that there's files in any of the tarballs listed at http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/download.html that have an incorrect license header? Incorrect might be too strong a word. IMO, "different" would describe it better. If so, you should be thinking about what to do with those releases -- like do a branch where you fix the headers and release new 4.1.2.2, 4.1.3.2 versions to replace them, or simply pull the 4.1.x releases and get 4.2 out quickly, or decide there really can't possibly be any problems for the users but add a warning to be safe, or successfully argue there's nothing that needs to be done, or whatever. I'd like to argue that nothing needs to be done :) The files are all licensed under the ASL, it's just that the text is subtly (but in my layman opinion not substantively) different from the most recent text at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html I think you're blessed with mentors that can offer some very expertish insights into how to deal with things like this :-) We couldn't agree more. Martin
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
On Jun 23, 2007, at 10:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Leo Simons wrote: I also believe/hope the status file might need an update or perhaps two: In progress Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I'd hope that was finished a while ago :-) It got started but we never did go through all the files to check that we didn't miss any (which we of course did). :-( I just finished a sweep through our sources and updated those that still needed it. The record of the changes is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-457 So, does this mean that there's files in any of the tarballs listed at http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/download.html that have an incorrect license header? If so, you should be thinking about what to do with those releases -- like do a branch where you fix the headers and release new 4.1.2.2, 4.1.3.2 versions to replace them, or simply pull the 4.1.x releases and get 4.2 out quickly, or decide there really can't possibly be any problems for the users but add a warning to be safe, or successfully argue there's nothing that needs to be done, or whatever. I think you're blessed with mentors that can offer some very expertish insights into how to deal with things like this :-) cheers, Leo
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
Martin Sebor wrote: > > It got started but we never did go through all the files to check > that we didn't miss any (which we of course did). I just finished > a sweep through our sources and updated those that still needed > it. The record of the changes is here: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-457 Had you happened to run RAT through the sources yet?
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
Leo Simons wrote: On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I think the community, as-is, can manage itself for now. ... I believe stdcxx is a nice, small, healthy little community doing what the committers are interested in - producing a world-class STL implementation under the ALv2 with our community principles behind it. ... I took 'a stroll' and I believe that too; not so worried about the 'for now'. I also believe/hope the status file might need an update or perhaps two: In progress Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I'd hope that was finished a while ago :-) It got started but we never did go through all the files to check that we didn't miss any (which we of course did). I just finished a sweep through our sources and updated those that still needed it. The record of the changes is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-457 I also updated the status file with this information. Martin
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I think the community, as-is, can manage itself for now. ... I believe stdcxx is a nice, small, healthy little community doing what the committers are interested in - producing a world-class STL implementation under the ALv2 with our community principles behind it. ... I took 'a stroll' and I believe that too; not so worried about the 'for now'. I also believe/hope the status file might need an update or perhaps two: In progress Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. I'd hope that was finished a while ago :-) - Leo
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: [...] things are as quiet as expected for a mature implementation of a reference standard. Any concern that because of the maturity, it could stagnate and lose community? Not at this time. Because it is widely deployed, there will be a long term demand. Because it's transparent to the developer, and in debugging their apps they can drill right into flaws within stdcxx, I suspect we will see bug feedback folks turn patchers turn contributors turn project members for years, as long as C++ is a widely adopted language. I have little to add to Bill and Justin's encouraging comments, except that the C++ standard is currently being revised and a new, significantly extended one is close to being completed, and is expected to be ratified in the 2010 timeframe. Many new features have already been added to the standard and more still are in the works. We are looking forward to fully implementing all of the new components after the upcoming 4.2 release of stdcxx. We expect to attract even more users to the project with this milestone release, and to grow the community of contributors in the coming months to help us with the implementation of the many new features. Graduating from the incubator will be a crucial step in reaching these goals and ensuring an wider adoption of the project. Martin
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
On 6/21/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What effect do you believe GPLv3 will have, now that the FSF is acknowledging that GPL projects may freely take advantage of Apache Licensed code? If any, it might spur some people who would have considered libstdc++ to now look at what we have to offer. > things are as quiet as expected for a mature implementation of > a reference standard. Any concern that because of the maturity, it could stagnate and lose community? I think the community, as-is, can manage itself for now. If it proves incapable of managing itself later, then we deal with it - that said, I'm not overly concerned. Admittedly, it's not likely to go gangbusters (c.f. Harmony) - but I believe stdcxx is a nice, small, healthy little community doing what the committers are interested in - producing a world-class STL implementation under the ALv2 with our community principles behind it. -- justin
Re: STDCXX progress to graduation
Noel J. Bergman wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> diversity is increasing (we wish it were broader, but I suspect this >> project with the visibility of full ASF status will attract additional >> committers who might have been hedging their bets on whether or not >> the project would survive incubation.) > > What effect do you believe GPLv3 will have, now that the FSF is acknowledging > that GPL projects may freely take advantage of Apache Licensed code? I suspect most GPL authors already felt quite free to combine and ship AL code in their GPL developer toolchains, when useful. Most J2 stacks haven't bothered to replace every .jar, they consume AL libraries when it suits their purpose. It would be really cool to see some of the FLOSS C++ groups to both consume and contribute to stdcxx, we'll see what happens. As far as other packagers blending proprietary and open source solutions, the very nature of an 'incubating' ASF project says we don't yet give it our full confidence, so a packager is behind the curve to rely on any project until it's graduated. We'll learn what the real delta is some year after stdcxx has graduated. >> things are as quiet as expected for a mature implementation of >> a reference standard. > > Any concern that because of the maturity, it could stagnate and lose > community? Not at this time. Because it is widely deployed, there will be a long term demand. Because it's transparent to the developer, and in debugging their apps they can drill right into flaws within stdcxx, I suspect we will see bug feedback folks turn patchers turn contributors turn project members for years, as long as C++ is a widely adopted language. Bill
RE: STDCXX progress to graduation
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > diversity is increasing (we wish it were broader, but I suspect this > project with the visibility of full ASF status will attract additional > committers who might have been hedging their bets on whether or not > the project would survive incubation.) What effect do you believe GPLv3 will have, now that the FSF is acknowledging that GPL projects may freely take advantage of Apache Licensed code? > things are as quiet as expected for a mature implementation of > a reference standard. Any concern that because of the maturity, it could stagnate and lose community? --- Noel
STDCXX progress to graduation
[How's that for optimism? please not corrected stdcxx-dev list address] I'm including general in this thread to give the incubator community some small insight into stdcxx's efforts and next steps to graduate. As far as I can see there are no remaining obstacles. http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/ is of a caliber higher than expected in open source efforts, the new steady contributors are recognized quickly with commit access (and later then with 'PMC membership' in the form of their PPMC), and diversity is increasing (we wish it were broader, but I suspect this project with the visibility of full ASF status will attract additional committers who might have been hedging their bets on whether or not the project would survive incubation.) It's survived, the community appears healthy - most code-discussion occurs in the actual jira incidents that the discussion applies to, and things are as quiet as expected for a mature implementation of a reference standard. Even issues raised by board/IPMC have been addressed quickly and sufficiently. (The issue with two-classes of CTR and RTC committers is resolved, while The "Committers in italics do not have a signed Contributor License Agreement on file." comment does not and will not become applicable, and can be removed the next time that file is touched.) If anyone has concerns about stdcxx's graduation, please share them with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] community. Bill
