You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> on 2010/09/10 17:40:05 UTC
lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Hi,
As i was merging some test changes, i noticed a test from the original
Lucene In Action...
I got to thinking, if we get whatever permission we need from manning, what
about importing the LIA2 tests into lucene's test system? They are marked
with an apache 2 license...
I think they are very nice and readable, and though you could say basic,
there are benefits to this:
* sometimes its good to have a readable test you can actually debug, you
cant have all hellacious random tests
* i think its useful to know if we make a change to branch_3x that breaks
one of these, like a basic sanity test for backwards compat.
any thoughts?
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey
<ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:21:03PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Wouldn't be NOTICE.txt the right place for this?
>>
>> I think NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt is in order to reference the license of
>> 3rd party sources when they are incorporated?
>
> How is this material coming in to Apache? Is it being "submitted directly to
> the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent", in which case the following
> applies?
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
My opinion is that this one applies.
> I had thought that was the case, but if not, then this applies instead and I
> believe usage is more constrained...
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
And not this one.
> ... though I'm not clear about exactly what the constraints are because the
> license is ASL2. If it were another license, then usage would definitely be
> more constrained.
>
> Regardless, NOTICE.txt isn't the place for a link advertising a book.
>
> http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y (Roy Fielding)
>
> Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
> documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those. They are not open to
> anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such notices,
> and they must not be added where they are not required. Each additional notice
> places a burden on the ASF and all downstream redistributors.
>
> ...
>
> If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required to be there, I will
> remove it as an officer of the ASF.
Right this is my impression to. Assuming I can somehow negotiate this
b/w Apache and Mannning.... the current plan is description of this
change, link to book's URL, goes in CHANGES.txt, and then any legalese
is added to NOTICE/LICENSE.
>> LIA2's source code is already ASL2, though it is "Copyright Manning" so
>> probably we will need to also put an entry in NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt.
>
> It would be nice if that were not the case, because of the burden on
> downstream. Why don't IBM, Lucid, Twitter, and so on insist on having their
> copyrights put into NOTICE.txt? Managing credit on a collective project like
> this is really hard. IMO, to be fairest to everyone it's best to avoid the
> issue altogether whenever possible.
I completely agree! I'll see if Manning is amenable.
> Again, this in no way diminishes the value of Manning's potential contribution
> or our gratitude for it. I just hope Manning understands why accommodating
> their request perhaps isn't as easy as it might have seemed from the outside.
Understood -- I'm trying to explain why these issues are important to
Apache, but, the book publishing world is like a whole new universe
compared to the Apache universe!! Of course, Manning (and other
publishes) bridge these two universes....
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:21:03PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't be NOTICE.txt the right place for this?
>
> I think NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt is in order to reference the license of
> 3rd party sources when they are incorporated?
How is this material coming in to Apache? Is it being "submitted directly to
the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent", in which case the following
applies?
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
I had thought that was the case, but if not, then this applies instead and I
believe usage is more constrained...
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
... though I'm not clear about exactly what the constraints are because the
license is ASL2. If it were another license, then usage would definitely be
more constrained.
Regardless, NOTICE.txt isn't the place for a link advertising a book.
http://markmail.org/message/cxwtnuys65c7hs2y (Roy Fielding)
Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those. They are not open to
anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such notices,
and they must not be added where they are not required. Each additional notice
places a burden on the ASF and all downstream redistributors.
...
If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required to be there, I will
remove it as an officer of the ASF.
> LIA2's source code is already ASL2, though it is "Copyright Manning" so
> probably we will need to also put an entry in NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt.
It would be nice if that were not the case, because of the burden on
downstream. Why don't IBM, Lucid, Twitter, and so on insist on having their
copyrights put into NOTICE.txt? Managing credit on a collective project like
this is really hard. IMO, to be fairest to everyone it's best to avoid the
issue altogether whenever possible.
Again, this in no way diminishes the value of Manning's potential contribution
or our gratitude for it. I just hope Manning understands why accommodating
their request perhaps isn't as easy as it might have seemed from the outside.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Wouldn't be NOTICE.txt the right place for this?
I think NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt is in order to reference the license of
3rd party sources when they are incorporated?
LIA2's source code is already ASL2, though it is "Copyright Manning"
so probably we will need to also put an entry in
NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Wouldn't be NOTICE.txt the right place for this?
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 12:06 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: yonik@lucidimagination.com
> Subject: Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:42:48PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> > So maybe another option is to have the CHANGES.txt entry describes the
> > addition of these tests and include a link to Manning's site?
> >
> > CHANGES.txt is our normal way for giving attribution so this seems
> reasonable?
>
> +0.1. OK by me.
>
> There are a lot of important contributions that don't make it into
CHANGES.txt,
> so I'd still say that the canonical record is the SVN log. And going
forward, I'm
> uncomfortable having to draw the line between what's important enough to
go
> into CHANGES.txt and what isn't. Rather than giving credit, the primary
> purpose of the CHANGES file is to provide users information they need to
know
> when upgrading, isn't it?
>
> However, I don't want to be too much of a stickler and get in the way of a
nice
> contribution here and now.
>
> Thanks for the contribution!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:42:48PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> So maybe another option is to have the CHANGES.txt entry describes the
> addition of these tests and include a link to Manning's site?
>
> CHANGES.txt is our normal way for giving attribution so this seems reasonable?
+0.1. OK by me.
There are a lot of important contributions that don't make it into
CHANGES.txt, so I'd still say that the canonical record is the SVN log. And
going forward, I'm uncomfortable having to draw the line between what's
important enough to go into CHANGES.txt and what isn't. Rather than giving
credit, the primary purpose of the CHANGES file is to provide users
information they need to know when upgrading, isn't it?
However, I don't want to be too much of a stickler and get in the way of a
nice contribution here and now.
Thanks for the contribution!
Cheers,
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
OK it sounds like this (attribution as a comment in each unit test)
may be a problem.
So maybe another option is to have the CHANGES.txt entry describes the
addition of these tests and include a link to Manning's site?
CHANGES.txt is our normal way for giving attribution so this seems reasonable?
Mike
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Yonik Seeley
<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>> Marjan (CEO of Manning) likes the idea, but asks if we can put a
>> comment at the top saying this came from LIA2 with a link the book's
>> page at manning.com. I think that's OK? Any objections?
>
> Some ASFer's might...
>
> http://markmail.org/message/niv75qat7sjmmuoy?list:org.apache.legal-discuss
>
> Should someone bring it up there?
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Marjan (CEO of Manning) likes the idea, but asks if we can put a
> comment at the top saying this came from LIA2 with a link the book's
> page at manning.com. I think that's OK? Any objections?
Some ASFer's might...
http://markmail.org/message/niv75qat7sjmmuoy?list:org.apache.legal-discuss
Should someone bring it up there?
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 02:07:43PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Marjan (CEO of Manning) likes the idea, but asks if we can put a
> comment at the top saying this came from LIA2 with a link the book's
> page at manning.com. I think that's OK? Any objections?
I'm glad that Manning is generally favorable, but I'm unsure about that. It's
kind of like @author tags, which are discouraged and which Lucene has
agressively removed. I guess since it's not a copyright it doesn't directly
violate this policy...
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
However, where do the crediting comments begin and end? What happens when
pieces of this file get refactored into other files, do the crediting comments
proliferate or disappear? Shall I start including comments at the top of
files I submit crediting my employer? How about every other contributor?
IMO, crediting in source code should be strictly limited to copyright and
licensing concerns; for everything else, credit belongs in version control and
the issue tracker.
Cheers,
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Marjan (CEO of Manning) likes the idea, but asks if we can put a
comment at the top saying this came from LIA2 with a link the book's
page at manning.com. I think that's OK? Any objections?
Mike
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +1! Great idea.
>
> I'll discuss with Manning....
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As i was merging some test changes, i noticed a test from the original
>> Lucene In Action...
>> I got to thinking, if we get whatever permission we need from manning, what
>> about importing the LIA2 tests into lucene's test system? They are marked
>> with an apache 2 license...
>> I think they are very nice and readable, and though you could say basic,
>> there are benefits to this:
>> * sometimes its good to have a readable test you can actually debug, you
>> cant have all hellacious random tests
>> * i think its useful to know if we make a change to branch_3x that breaks
>> one of these, like a basic sanity test for backwards compat.
>> any thoughts?
>> --
>> Robert Muir
>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
+1! Great idea.
I'll discuss with Manning....
Mike
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> As i was merging some test changes, i noticed a test from the original
> Lucene In Action...
> I got to thinking, if we get whatever permission we need from manning, what
> about importing the LIA2 tests into lucene's test system? They are marked
> with an apache 2 license...
> I think they are very nice and readable, and though you could say basic,
> there are benefits to this:
> * sometimes its good to have a readable test you can actually debug, you
> cant have all hellacious random tests
> * i think its useful to know if we make a change to branch_3x that breaks
> one of these, like a basic sanity test for backwards compat.
> any thoughts?
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Posted by Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com>.
I like this idea! The test coverage / usage examples the better.
+1
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> As i was merging some test changes, i noticed a test from the original
> Lucene In Action...
> I got to thinking, if we get whatever permission we need from manning, what
> about importing the LIA2 tests into lucene's test system? They are marked
> with an apache 2 license...
> I think they are very nice and readable, and though you could say basic,
> there are benefits to this:
> * sometimes its good to have a readable test you can actually debug, you
> cant have all hellacious random tests
> * i think its useful to know if we make a change to branch_3x that breaks
> one of these, like a basic sanity test for backwards compat.
> any thoughts?
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org