You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by piotrz <pi...@gmail.com> on 2017/05/23 08:49:39 UTC
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Hi Justin,
My experience in work with it - that problem is a simple copy-paste, but
maybe someone will have other explanation. :)
Thanks,
Piotr
-----
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-odd-license-headers-on-some-files-tp61765p61767.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
My assumption is that we got two different headers by mistake, but let’s wait until more people weigh in before we change anything.
If it was a mistake, it should be a simple find/replace to fix it.
> On May 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite difficult ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different file (I don’t remember which one).
>
> I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no clues here…
>
> Harbs
>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> HI,
>>
>>> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>>
>> I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>
>
>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Did RAT catch this? If not, why bother doing anything here?
Because RAT is a simple tool and it doesn’t catch everything. It even tells you that when you run it.
NOTE:
Rat is really little more than a grep ATM
Rat is also rather memory hungry ATM
Rat is very basic ATM
Rat highlights possible issues
Rat reports require intepretation
Rat often requires some tuning before it runs well against a project
Rat relies on heuristics: it may miss issues
Re “why bother doing anything” while I don’t think this is a big issue we have some files that are clearly Apache licensed but they have the wrong header text. The full header text is required by Apache legal policy [1] other than in a couple of cases. IMO we should just fix it and move on.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> How does fixing these headers help the community?
In short -by giving the ASF board and users confidence that they can use our software without any legal issues.
> each of us will now have to take time to make sure we have the right
> header before committing new files.
And if you miss something it easy enough to fix. As people know know this may be an issue someone should see it when it is checked in.
> Justin is great at finding what isn't expected. But his track record for
> correctly deciding what action to take is not very good.
My track record is actually better than your's Alex. But why bring that up for a trivial change like this when it very clear what is required by ASF legal policy?
> Burning out committers and release managers is not
> helpful to the community.
How does a trivial obvious change do that? They only issue here seems to be you opposition to it and not letting people just get on and do things.
Given there enough PMC members who agree with the change and you have stated you will not veto it I’ll go ahead and make the change and this unnecessary discussion can be ended.
Thanks,
Justin
Contributions / SonarCube (was odd headers)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Absolutely want to see more discussion about the 9 or 13 points from
> ApacheCon. I don't agree that discussing trace statements, inlining
> constants, and empty constructors will bring in more contributors.
> Getting quality releases out encourages more contributors.
Well actually the issues above is one of the points on that ApacheCon list. It about code quality and Sonar Cube reports. SonarCube flags the above items as critical / major issues.
A lot of the things reported by SonarCube are easy to fix and it's a very easy way for people to contribute especially if they are not confident in making changes to the SDK or know the code base well. In some case you wouldn’t even need to know AS or Java well to make the suggested changes.
Now same of these changes are needed, some may not be, and some we should ignore but you usually uncover issues or bugs when looking at them - as I did the other day. You may not agree with how it categorised things and perhaps the reports need some filtering / tuning but if so lets discuss that here.
Here’s the SonarCube links for those interested - and yes it also scans the framework AS code.
https://builds.apache.org/analysis/overview?id=2461
https://builds.apache.org/analysis/overview?id=20942
There’s currently a large number of issues for those above projects including a small number of what it thinks are blocking/critical bugs and security vulnerabilities.
It’s also very easy to set up and run locally for people working on their own FlexJS applications.
> Getting some production apps out there will bring in more contributors.
There are several people on this list working on FlexJS applications myself included. Our application is currently in production (soft launch) and I gave a talk about the development of it at ApacheCon.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I had a great time meeting most of you last week. Alex I met some 3 years ago.
Good to meet you in person as well.
> Justin can you please provide a precise diff explaining what is off with these headers?
They are missing this bit:
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
distributed with this work for additional information
regarding copyright ownership.
> Also how many files.
About 220 files.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Your changes look good to me. Onward!
- Josh
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> HI,
>
> Changes made and committed.
>
> There were about 50 files as there was some noise form 3rd party files
> when I did a grep looking for the issue. I did not alter the header of any
> 3rd party file.
>
> I believe I know what the issue is here. The text for the Apache license
> contains some text for 3rd parties to add as a license header, but ASF
> policy is for ASF project to use a different header. So someone copied the
> header text from a 3rd party file and used that or they copied the header
> text from the LICENSE file and used that. Not a big deal and now it is
> fixed. Can we move on please?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
Changes made and committed.
There were about 50 files as there was some noise form 3rd party files when I did a grep looking for the issue. I did not alter the header of any 3rd party file.
I believe I know what the issue is here. The text for the Apache license contains some text for 3rd parties to add as a license header, but ASF policy is for ASF project to use a different header. So someone copied the header text from a 3rd party file and used that or they copied the header text from the LICENSE file and used that. Not a big deal and now it is fixed. Can we move on please?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 5/24/17, 1:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Alex - are we really close to cutting a release?
Every day, I keep hoping I'm about to fix the last big bug, only to find
that something else big. Apparently only now are folks testing some parts
of the Maven build and there are issues there as well. I sure hope we are
ready in a day or two. But I've been wrong about that for nearly three
weeks now.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Folks,
I had a great time meeting most of you last week. Alex I met some 3 years ago.
Justin can you please provide a precise diff explaining what is off with these headers? Also how many files.
Alex - are we really close to cutting a release?
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 24, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 5/24/17, 10:35 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alex,
>>
>> If Justin were proposing these changes to an RC, I would strongly agree
>> with you that it should wait. However, I thought we all agreed that Last
>> Call was the better time to get things in that we want to get in. It feels
>> to me like you're moving the goal posts to now say that it should wait
>> until after the release. I was frustrated by Justin proposing changes in
>> the RC before, but as we're still in Last Call, I'm going to defend him.
>
> Last call was sent out on 4/21. It is now 5/24. So sure, it is true that
> the window is still open to find issues, but the idea was to find
> important issues and deal with other issues later. How does fixing these
> headers help the community? I would discourage all non-critical commits
> at this time. Now that we know that RAT won't find this kind of error,
> each of us will now have to take time to make sure we have the right
> header before committing new files. And we will have to at least think
> about it when we review new commits from others. That seems very wasteful
> to me. Maybe we'd be past "Last Call" and into RC if we spent our time on
> getting the examples to work instead of this other stuff.
>
>>
>> I understand that you think licensing details aren't as important as other
>> things, so it's cool if you don't want to focus on that part as we get
>> close to a release. However, that's the itch Justin seems to want to
>> scratch, and I don't think it's fair of you to tell him what he should
>> think is important. It should take little more than a glance for the PMC
>> to
>> review his changes. You often bring up how we should trust the intent of a
>> contributor, and you could trust that he knows what to change for
>> licensing
>> since that's something he knows well. Looking at all 220 headers
>> individually seems unnecessary.
>
> Justin is great at finding what isn't expected. But his track record for
> correctly deciding what action to take is not very good. Just review
> legal-discuss archives. I'd list them all out, but don't want to spend
> more time on it. In this case, there is no debate about what to do, just
> when. There are so many more things that we can do now to make the
> community better. Burning out committers and release managers is not
> helpful to the community.
>
>>
>>> Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
>> constants and empty constructors.
>>
>> I don't see why we can't start thinking about things for the next release
>> as we're finishing up the current release. Plus, ApacheCon just happened,
>> and we're all buzzing with ideas after meeting together, so the mailing
>> list activity is up. Let's not discourage the extra enthusiasm from our
>> contributors right now. This enthusiasm is something good for potential
>> new
>> contributors to see.
>
> Absolutely want to see more discussion about the 9 or 13 points from
> ApacheCon. I don't agree that discussing trace statements, inlining
> constants, and empty constructors will bring in more contributors.
> Getting quality releases out encourages more contributors. Getting some
> production apps out there will bring in more contributors. These big
> things help me make a case to keep working on FlexJS. I'll be really sad
> if I have to stop working full-time on FlexJS because we spent all of this
> time on other things.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Technically, I am not blocking. I am saying that there is a better time
>>> to do this change and we need to focus on the big picture and spend
>>> energy
>>> on things that matter. This topic could have been as simple as an email
>>> from Justin that said "hey, I just noticed we have inconsistent headers.
>>> I would like to clean that up after the release and branch merges."
>>>
>>> Instead, the email thread was several posts long already by the time I
>>> had
>>> to read through it. Harbs put down his work to at least wonder why one
>>> of
>>> his files was named. Then there will be the time for Justin to actually
>>> make these changes. Who is volunteering to review the change? As PMC
>>> members we are all supposed to be watching the commits.
>>>
>>> And you get more of what you encourage. I am trying to encourage folks
>>> to
>>> take stuff that isn't that important and find it early by watching the
>>> commits, or put it off to the next release. That has been the advice of
>>> several experienced Apache folks. I'm not making this up. If you want
>>> to
>>> encourage folks to nitpick at the end of release cycles, well then I can
>>> only tell you from my personal experience that after several releases it
>>> discourages me from wanting to be a release manager. Should we
>>> encourage
>>> all of us to nitpick more at the end of release cycles? Would that make
>>> more of you want to be a release manager? You can't look at this one
>>> change in isolation.
>>>
>>> Every day, I am trying to marshall the limited resources we have to
>>> find a
>>> way to bring in more contributors in hopes we can get some FlexJS apps
>>> into production in hopes that Adobe will continue to pay me to work on
>>> this stuff full-time. Making us review 220 headers is not going to
>>> bring
>>> in more contributors. Getting our examples to work right, making
>>> progress
>>> on the top 9 things from ApacheCon, helping Harbs and Yishay get their
>>> app
>>> into production will all serve the community better. Instead, Yishay
>>> got
>>> stuck yesterday because I have not found the time to fix a bug in the
>>> TLF
>>> branch. Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
>>> constants and empty constructors.
>>>
>>> So, if you guys want more nitpicking, then go ahead and encourage it. I
>>> won't veto the change. But I'll be even less motivated to be the RM in
>>> the future.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/17, 6:34 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the
>>> kind
>>>> of
>>>> grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool,
>>> make
>>>> the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
>>>> managers.
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>> On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead
>>> of
>>>>> just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
>>>>
>>>> Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not
>>> some
>>>> grind through stuff that doesn't matter. If we clean this up now, we
>>> will
>>>> again prove that this community cannot focus on important things. The
>>>> casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why
>>> we
>>>> are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon. Is this really
>>>> more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will
>>> affect
>>>> many of our customers? Usually, late in a release cycle, the only
>>> changes
>>>> should be stop-ship.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we
>>> flood
>>>> commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master.
>>> Then
>>>> 220 header changes will not make significant noise.
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 5/24/17, 10:35 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alex,
>
>If Justin were proposing these changes to an RC, I would strongly agree
>with you that it should wait. However, I thought we all agreed that Last
>Call was the better time to get things in that we want to get in. It feels
>to me like you're moving the goal posts to now say that it should wait
>until after the release. I was frustrated by Justin proposing changes in
>the RC before, but as we're still in Last Call, I'm going to defend him.
Last call was sent out on 4/21. It is now 5/24. So sure, it is true that
the window is still open to find issues, but the idea was to find
important issues and deal with other issues later. How does fixing these
headers help the community? I would discourage all non-critical commits
at this time. Now that we know that RAT won't find this kind of error,
each of us will now have to take time to make sure we have the right
header before committing new files. And we will have to at least think
about it when we review new commits from others. That seems very wasteful
to me. Maybe we'd be past "Last Call" and into RC if we spent our time on
getting the examples to work instead of this other stuff.
>
>I understand that you think licensing details aren't as important as other
>things, so it's cool if you don't want to focus on that part as we get
>close to a release. However, that's the itch Justin seems to want to
>scratch, and I don't think it's fair of you to tell him what he should
>think is important. It should take little more than a glance for the PMC
>to
>review his changes. You often bring up how we should trust the intent of a
>contributor, and you could trust that he knows what to change for
>licensing
>since that's something he knows well. Looking at all 220 headers
>individually seems unnecessary.
Justin is great at finding what isn't expected. But his track record for
correctly deciding what action to take is not very good. Just review
legal-discuss archives. I'd list them all out, but don't want to spend
more time on it. In this case, there is no debate about what to do, just
when. There are so many more things that we can do now to make the
community better. Burning out committers and release managers is not
helpful to the community.
>
>> Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
>constants and empty constructors.
>
>I don't see why we can't start thinking about things for the next release
>as we're finishing up the current release. Plus, ApacheCon just happened,
>and we're all buzzing with ideas after meeting together, so the mailing
>list activity is up. Let's not discourage the extra enthusiasm from our
>contributors right now. This enthusiasm is something good for potential
>new
>contributors to see.
Absolutely want to see more discussion about the 9 or 13 points from
ApacheCon. I don't agree that discussing trace statements, inlining
constants, and empty constructors will bring in more contributors.
Getting quality releases out encourages more contributors. Getting some
production apps out there will bring in more contributors. These big
things help me make a case to keep working on FlexJS. I'll be really sad
if I have to stop working full-time on FlexJS because we spent all of this
time on other things.
-Alex
>
>- Josh
>
>On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Technically, I am not blocking. I am saying that there is a better time
>> to do this change and we need to focus on the big picture and spend
>>energy
>> on things that matter. This topic could have been as simple as an email
>> from Justin that said "hey, I just noticed we have inconsistent headers.
>> I would like to clean that up after the release and branch merges."
>>
>> Instead, the email thread was several posts long already by the time I
>>had
>> to read through it. Harbs put down his work to at least wonder why one
>>of
>> his files was named. Then there will be the time for Justin to actually
>> make these changes. Who is volunteering to review the change? As PMC
>> members we are all supposed to be watching the commits.
>>
>> And you get more of what you encourage. I am trying to encourage folks
>>to
>> take stuff that isn't that important and find it early by watching the
>> commits, or put it off to the next release. That has been the advice of
>> several experienced Apache folks. I'm not making this up. If you want
>>to
>> encourage folks to nitpick at the end of release cycles, well then I can
>> only tell you from my personal experience that after several releases it
>> discourages me from wanting to be a release manager. Should we
>>encourage
>> all of us to nitpick more at the end of release cycles? Would that make
>> more of you want to be a release manager? You can't look at this one
>> change in isolation.
>>
>> Every day, I am trying to marshall the limited resources we have to
>>find a
>> way to bring in more contributors in hopes we can get some FlexJS apps
>> into production in hopes that Adobe will continue to pay me to work on
>> this stuff full-time. Making us review 220 headers is not going to
>>bring
>> in more contributors. Getting our examples to work right, making
>>progress
>> on the top 9 things from ApacheCon, helping Harbs and Yishay get their
>>app
>> into production will all serve the community better. Instead, Yishay
>>got
>> stuck yesterday because I have not found the time to fix a bug in the
>>TLF
>> branch. Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
>> constants and empty constructors.
>>
>> So, if you guys want more nitpicking, then go ahead and encourage it. I
>> won't veto the change. But I'll be even less motivated to be the RM in
>> the future.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 5/24/17, 6:34 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the
>>kind
>> >of
>> >grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool,
>>make
>> >the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
>> >managers.
>> >
>> >- Josh
>> >
>> >On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hi Alex,
>> >>
>> >>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead
>>of
>> >>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
>> >
>> >Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not
>>some
>> >grind through stuff that doesn't matter. If we clean this up now, we
>>will
>> >again prove that this community cannot focus on important things. The
>> >casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why
>>we
>> >are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon. Is this really
>> >more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will
>>affect
>> >many of our customers? Usually, late in a release cycle, the only
>>changes
>> >should be stop-ship.
>> >
>> >IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we
>>flood
>> >commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master.
>>Then
>> >220 header changes will not make significant noise.
>> >
>> >My 2 cents,
>> >-Alex
>>
>>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> but as we're still in Last Call, I'm going to defend him.
Thanks for that.
> I understand that you think licensing details aren't as important as other
> things
The PMC as a whole was a responsible to get the licensing stuff right and while some people may not think it is important other people do including user / consumers of our software, ASF legal, the ASF boardl etc etc do think it’s important.
> I don't see why we can't start thinking about things for the next release
> as we're finishing up the current release.
Neither do I. We want to encourage all contributions (from committers and users) and that shouldn’t be dependent on if there’s a release happening or not. As this point (although we do seem to have one or two issues to address) the release is mostly done bar creating the RC and voting on it.
I can make the header changes today so they will not hold up any work on the release- while it changes a number of files, reviewing that change is trivial.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Alex,
If Justin were proposing these changes to an RC, I would strongly agree
with you that it should wait. However, I thought we all agreed that Last
Call was the better time to get things in that we want to get in. It feels
to me like you're moving the goal posts to now say that it should wait
until after the release. I was frustrated by Justin proposing changes in
the RC before, but as we're still in Last Call, I'm going to defend him.
I understand that you think licensing details aren't as important as other
things, so it's cool if you don't want to focus on that part as we get
close to a release. However, that's the itch Justin seems to want to
scratch, and I don't think it's fair of you to tell him what he should
think is important. It should take little more than a glance for the PMC to
review his changes. You often bring up how we should trust the intent of a
contributor, and you could trust that he knows what to change for licensing
since that's something he knows well. Looking at all 220 headers
individually seems unnecessary.
> Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
constants and empty constructors.
I don't see why we can't start thinking about things for the next release
as we're finishing up the current release. Plus, ApacheCon just happened,
and we're all buzzing with ideas after meeting together, so the mailing
list activity is up. Let's not discourage the extra enthusiasm from our
contributors right now. This enthusiasm is something good for potential new
contributors to see.
- Josh
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Technically, I am not blocking. I am saying that there is a better time
> to do this change and we need to focus on the big picture and spend energy
> on things that matter. This topic could have been as simple as an email
> from Justin that said "hey, I just noticed we have inconsistent headers.
> I would like to clean that up after the release and branch merges."
>
> Instead, the email thread was several posts long already by the time I had
> to read through it. Harbs put down his work to at least wonder why one of
> his files was named. Then there will be the time for Justin to actually
> make these changes. Who is volunteering to review the change? As PMC
> members we are all supposed to be watching the commits.
>
> And you get more of what you encourage. I am trying to encourage folks to
> take stuff that isn't that important and find it early by watching the
> commits, or put it off to the next release. That has been the advice of
> several experienced Apache folks. I'm not making this up. If you want to
> encourage folks to nitpick at the end of release cycles, well then I can
> only tell you from my personal experience that after several releases it
> discourages me from wanting to be a release manager. Should we encourage
> all of us to nitpick more at the end of release cycles? Would that make
> more of you want to be a release manager? You can't look at this one
> change in isolation.
>
> Every day, I am trying to marshall the limited resources we have to find a
> way to bring in more contributors in hopes we can get some FlexJS apps
> into production in hopes that Adobe will continue to pay me to work on
> this stuff full-time. Making us review 220 headers is not going to bring
> in more contributors. Getting our examples to work right, making progress
> on the top 9 things from ApacheCon, helping Harbs and Yishay get their app
> into production will all serve the community better. Instead, Yishay got
> stuck yesterday because I have not found the time to fix a bug in the TLF
> branch. Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
> constants and empty constructors.
>
> So, if you guys want more nitpicking, then go ahead and encourage it. I
> won't veto the change. But I'll be even less motivated to be the RM in
> the future.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/24/17, 6:34 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the kind
> >of
> >grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool, make
> >the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
> >managers.
> >
> >- Josh
> >
> >On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Alex,
> >>
> >>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
> >>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
> >
> >Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
> >grind through stuff that doesn't matter. If we clean this up now, we will
> >again prove that this community cannot focus on important things. The
> >casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
> >are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon. Is this really
> >more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
> >many of our customers? Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
> >should be stop-ship.
> >
> >IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
> >commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
> >220 header changes will not make significant noise.
> >
> >My 2 cents,
> >-Alex
>
>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Technically, I am not blocking. I am saying that there is a better time
to do this change and we need to focus on the big picture and spend energy
on things that matter. This topic could have been as simple as an email
from Justin that said "hey, I just noticed we have inconsistent headers.
I would like to clean that up after the release and branch merges."
Instead, the email thread was several posts long already by the time I had
to read through it. Harbs put down his work to at least wonder why one of
his files was named. Then there will be the time for Justin to actually
make these changes. Who is volunteering to review the change? As PMC
members we are all supposed to be watching the commits.
And you get more of what you encourage. I am trying to encourage folks to
take stuff that isn't that important and find it early by watching the
commits, or put it off to the next release. That has been the advice of
several experienced Apache folks. I'm not making this up. If you want to
encourage folks to nitpick at the end of release cycles, well then I can
only tell you from my personal experience that after several releases it
discourages me from wanting to be a release manager. Should we encourage
all of us to nitpick more at the end of release cycles? Would that make
more of you want to be a release manager? You can't look at this one
change in isolation.
Every day, I am trying to marshall the limited resources we have to find a
way to bring in more contributors in hopes we can get some FlexJS apps
into production in hopes that Adobe will continue to pay me to work on
this stuff full-time. Making us review 220 headers is not going to bring
in more contributors. Getting our examples to work right, making progress
on the top 9 things from ApacheCon, helping Harbs and Yishay get their app
into production will all serve the community better. Instead, Yishay got
stuck yesterday because I have not found the time to fix a bug in the TLF
branch. Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
constants and empty constructors.
So, if you guys want more nitpicking, then go ahead and encourage it. I
won't veto the change. But I'll be even less motivated to be the RM in
the future.
-Alex
On 5/24/17, 6:34 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the kind
>of
>grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool, make
>the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
>managers.
>
>- Josh
>
>On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>>Hi Alex,
>>
>>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
>>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
>
>Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
>grind through stuff that doesn't matter. If we clean this up now, we will
>again prove that this community cannot focus on important things. The
>casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
>are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon. Is this really
>more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
>many of our customers? Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
>should be stop-ship.
>
>IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
>commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
>220 header changes will not make significant noise.
>
>My 2 cents,
>-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the kind of
grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool, make
the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
managers.
- Josh
On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
grind through stuff that doesn't matter. If we clean this up now, we will
again prove that this community cannot focus on important things. The
casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon. Is this really
more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
many of our customers? Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
should be stop-ship.
IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
220 header changes will not make significant noise.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
grind through stuff that doesn't matter. If we clean this up now, we will
again prove that this community cannot focus on important things. The
casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon. Is this really
more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
many of our customers? Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
should be stop-ship.
IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
220 header changes will not make significant noise.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
The thing is, I can’t see that file in my repo …
I think you only have this when installing a Flex(JS)SDK with AIR. So eventually if you ran an Ant build, this is probably there.
Chris
Am 24.05.17, 15:39 schrieb "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com>:
If it's ANE-related, it seems likely that it's from an AIR SDK.
- Josh
On May 23, 2017 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
On 5/23/17, 3:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems
>>willing
>> to fix them himself
>
>Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the
>different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy /
>paste issue
>
>I also come across this header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I
>gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h
I cannot find this file in my working copies. Where did it come from?
-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
If it's ANE-related, it seems likely that it's from an AIR SDK.
- Josh
On May 23, 2017 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
On 5/23/17, 3:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems
>>willing
>> to fix them himself
>
>Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the
>different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy /
>paste issue
>
>I also come across this header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I
>gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h
I cannot find this file in my working copies. Where did it come from?
-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 5/23/17, 3:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems
>>willing
>> to fix them himself
>
>Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the
>different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy /
>paste issue
>
>I also come across this header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I
>gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h
I cannot find this file in my working copies. Where did it come from?
-Alex
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems willing
> to fix them himself
Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy / paste issue
I also come across this header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
// ADOBE CONFIDENTIAL
//
// Copyright 2011 Adobe Systems Incorporated All Rights Reserved.
//
// NOTICE: All information contained herein is, and remains the property of
// Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers, if any. The intellectual and
// technical concepts contained herein are proprietary to Adobe Systems
// Incorporated and its suppliers and may be covered by U.S. and Foreign
// Patents, patents in process, and are protected by trade secret or copyright
// law. Dissemination of this information or reproduction of this material
// is strictly forbidden unless prior written permission is obtained from
// Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Thanks,
Justin
1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems willing
to fix them himself, so let's not hold him back if he wants to do that. As
long as his proposed changes seem correct at a glance, I feel like this
should not require any discussion except to say "go for it!"
- Josh
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
> just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
>
> I would like to resolve things like this as quietly and as swiftly as
> possible. It’s not keeping you from your work, is it?
>
> And it’s not going to conflict any operational code, is it?
>
> So, if Justin found something, just let him fix it and not start yet
> another license discussion about it. But that’s just my opinion.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 23.05.17, 17:04 schrieb "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>:
>
> Did RAT catch this? If not, why bother doing anything here? Might
> want
> to check with the RAT folks to see why they permit it and deal with it
> after the release. Let's spend our energy on making sure there aren't
> any
> big bugs out there.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/23/17, 7:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >+1
> >
> >I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
> >consistent.
> >
> >- Josh
> >
> >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz
> ><ch...@c-ware.de>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> So how about just updating all places where the license is not
> correct?
> >> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems
> with
> >> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite
> >>difficult
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a
> >>different
> >> file (I don’t remember which one).
> >>
> >> I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so
> no
> >> clues here…
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >> > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean
> >><ju...@classsoftware.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > HI,
> >> >
> >> >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
> >> >
> >> > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
> >> unaware of.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Justin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Alex,
I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
I would like to resolve things like this as quietly and as swiftly as possible. It’s not keeping you from your work, is it?
And it’s not going to conflict any operational code, is it?
So, if Justin found something, just let him fix it and not start yet another license discussion about it. But that’s just my opinion.
Chris
Am 23.05.17, 17:04 schrieb "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>:
Did RAT catch this? If not, why bother doing anything here? Might want
to check with the RAT folks to see why they permit it and deal with it
after the release. Let's spend our energy on making sure there aren't any
big bugs out there.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 5/23/17, 7:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1
>
>I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
>consistent.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz
><ch...@c-ware.de>
>wrote:
>
>> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
>> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with
>> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite
>>difficult
>> ;-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a
>>different
>> file (I don’t remember which one).
>>
>> I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no
>> clues here…
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean
>><ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > HI,
>> >
>> >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>> >
>> > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
>> unaware of.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Did RAT catch this? If not, why bother doing anything here? Might want
to check with the RAT folks to see why they permit it and deal with it
after the release. Let's spend our energy on making sure there aren't any
big bugs out there.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 5/23/17, 7:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1
>
>I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
>consistent.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz
><ch...@c-ware.de>
>wrote:
>
>> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
>> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with
>> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite
>>difficult
>> ;-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a
>>different
>> file (I don’t remember which one).
>>
>> I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no
>> clues here…
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean
>><ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > HI,
>> >
>> >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>> >
>> > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
>> unaware of.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
consistent.
- Josh
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with
> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite difficult
> ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different
> file (I don’t remember which one).
>
> I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no
> clues here…
>
> Harbs
>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > HI,
> >
> >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
> >
> > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
> unaware of.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
>
>
>
>
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite difficult ;-)
Chris
Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different file (I don’t remember which one).
I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no clues here…
Harbs
> On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>
> I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different file (I don’t remember which one).
I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no clues here…
Harbs
> On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>
> I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> that problem is a simple copy-paste
I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
Thanks,
Justin