On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:08:13PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with
> copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo
> would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml
> and should I leave Ge
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my
> contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we
> switch to this?
>
The DCO doesn't change your rights at all, or change the status of the
copy
On 10/27/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
>> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux
>> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted
>> otherwise.
>>
>
> Stepping back, I'd just like to c
> So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating
> it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the
> intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it.
+1
:-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux
> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted
> otherwise.
>
Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion
on this that is lik
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Matthias Maier wrote:
>> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source
>> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2
> I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There
> is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under
>> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the
>> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not ju
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> >
>> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing,
>>
>> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under
> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the
> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC
> LICENSE." The former has far more trad
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the
> >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider
> >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing,
>
> So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?"
That's one objection of min
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
>> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the
>> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider
>> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed
>> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version ("chan
> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source
> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2
I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There
is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this. Not everything in
the linux repository falls under GPL
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing,
So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?"
I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under
trademark law than copyright law. Th
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> This is from the last policy draft:
> >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml
>
> > Why redraft the alr
On 10/26/2016 04:02 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I did suggest that we probably should ban this header until we
> actually have a DCO because it blurs the lines. However, it isn't
Makes sense, at least strongly discourage, although it likely isn't too
difficult to do a full ban on git push
> really
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Under this interpretation, developers using this header to add other
> peoples work to tree is making our use of DCO pointless.
>
> Because DCO has to be the person who *authored* the commit, not the
> person who merely added it to tree.
Th
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:45:56 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I don't think we need a git header for the purpose of saying that
> something looks good to somebody else. If you commit something and it
> doesn't work, we'll ask you to stop doing it. If you keep doing it
> we'll take away your commit a
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
>
> On October 23, 2016 11:29:49 PM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>>Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell
>> napisał(a):
>>>On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Maybe I have missed something, but why would
On 10/24/2016 09:21 AM, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
> What would you call what I decribed, though; Acked?
Acked-By and/or Reviewed-By (although we don't have a specific
reviewer's statement in Gentoo (yet?))
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On October 23, 2016 11:29:49 PM PDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell
> napisał(a):
>>On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>>
On Tue, 18
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:29:49 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> How about Gentoo developers stopping to reuse things that have well-defined
> meaning for something completely different?
Patching the git tools to have a simple-to-use way to indicate the
equivalent metadata welcome ...
But like, you'r
Dnia 24 października 2016 07:32:26 CEST, Daniel Campbell
napisał(a):
>On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500
>>> Matthew Thode wrote:
>>
Does pram allow you to pass options to git
am (si
On 10/19/2016 02:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500
>> Matthew Thode wrote:
>
>>> Does pram allow you to pass options to git
>>> am (signedoffby for instance)?
>
>> It doesn't presently allow arbitrary arguments,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> The last draft DCO was:
>> Gentoo DCO 1.0 By making a contribution to this project, I certify
>> that: (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
>> have the
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> This is from the last policy draft:
>> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml
> Why redraft the already-useful DCO that is out there for you to use
> as-is:
> http://devel
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo,
> > --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two.
> >
> > So I think the intent for thi
El mar, 18-10-2016 a las 23:13 +0200, Patrice Clement escribió:
> Hello fellow Gentoo developers and subscribers of the gentoo-dev
> mailing list,
>
>
[...]
Thanks a lot for your work!
But, is there any place (an official wiki page from the project taking
care of github mirror work) where all t
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> So if this commit was to get teleported to a different repo,
> --signoff by would be preserved, as an intermediate between these two.
>
> So I think the intent for this is "X reviewed these changes for Gentoo
> and takes responsibility for t
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:15:11 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >
> > Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's work'. I suppose the
> > commit itself is good enough for this but I personally prefer verbosity.
> > It also calls out that it wasn't my work.
> >
>
> This sounds mor
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500
>> Matthew Thode wrote:
>
>>> Does pram allow you to pass options to git
>>> am (signedoffby for instance)?
>
>> It doesn't presently allow arbitrary argu
On 10/19/2016 07:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 02:13 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for
>>> a Gentoo commit?
>>
>> Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's w
On 10/19/2016 02:13 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for
>> a Gentoo commit?
>
> Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's work'. I suppose the
> commit itself is good enough for thi
On 10/19/2016 04:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Maybe I have missed something, but why would one use --signoff for
> a Gentoo commit?
Personally I use it as 'I sign off on the Author's work'. I suppose the
commit itself is good enough for this but I personally prefer verbosity.
It also calls out
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500
> Matthew Thode wrote:
>> Does pram allow you to pass options to git
>> am (signedoffby for instance)?
> It doesn't presently allow arbitrary arguments, and it would
> probably be wise to avoid need for such arg
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:13:26 +0200
Patrice Clement wrote:
> In the case of Gentoo though, it makes no sense. We should strive for
> keeping a clean and linear history.
A DAG is what I would call linear history :)
Merge commits preserve that structure, git log performs a topological
sort on the
On 10/19/2016 01:00 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> One of the downsides both the git-am and cherry-pick workflows are that
> they invalidate or otherwise omit commit signatures.
>
> git-merge on the other hand does preserve the signature as the original
> commit is intact, and the merge commit is w
One of the downsides both the git-am and cherry-pick workflows are that
they invalidate or otherwise omit commit signatures.
git-merge on the other hand does preserve the signature as the original
commit is intact, and the merge commit is where the signature of the
gentoo developer is introduced.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:45:05 -0500
Matthew Thode wrote:
> Does pram allow you to pass options to git
> am (signedoffby for instance)?
It doesn't presently allow arbitrary arguments, and it would probably be wise
to avoid need for such arguments and prefer convention over configuration,
given w
I've been using the curl into git am method for a while now, it's nice
to see it's not just me :D Does pram allow you to pass options to git
am (signedoffby for instance)?
--
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 10/18/2016 08:03 PM, Benda Xu wrote:
>
> This will be an important reference. Please consider adding it into the
> wiki after we reach a wider consensus on how to merge pull request on
> github.
It's been there for a long time:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Pull_requests_f
Hi Patrice,
Patrice Clement writes:
> [...]
Very enjoyable write-up. I completely agree with you.
This will be an important reference. Please consider adding it into the
wiki after we reach a wider consensus on how to merge pull request on
github.
Benda
signature.asc
Description: PGP signa
Patrice Clement wrote:
> We should strive for keeping a clean and linear history.
I agree with you.
> Cherry-picking is not my go-to solution as far as I'm concerned.
> It requires a bit of setup and is clearly tedious: you must know
> in advance the full SHA-1 of commit(s) you want to cherry-pi
Hello fellow Gentoo developers and subscribers of the gentoo-dev mailing list,
I've been wanting to write this email for a while but for some reason never got
round to doing it due to lack of motivation and time.
I will be discussing many topics in this email revolving around git
essentially. I
44 matches
Mail list logo
