You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> on 2008/10/24 09:16:57 UTC
Re: Android source: open for business
In message <80...@mail.gmail.com>,
"Dan Bornstein" writes:
>
> Greetings, Harmony People.
>
> Earlier today, the Android project pushed its first open source
> release out the door. You can find all the details here:
> <http://source.android.com/>
Congratulations! Given the scope of the Android project this is a very
impressive achievement.
> If you dig into the source, you'll find some no doubt very
> familiar-looking files under <dalvik/libcore/*>. Once again, I thank
> you all for your important contributions!
>
> We have been spending all our time recently trying to get two products
> out the door - one being a software build for the "G1" device, and the
> other being the source code itself along with the related tools - but
> now that the dust is settling, we are beginning to contemplate how
> best to get our library code back in sync with the Harmony mainline.
> We have changes we've made that we are reasonably sure would be useful
> to Harmony, and we've made others we are pretty sure don't make sense
> for Harmony's primary target of desktop/server class machines.
>
> In the coming months, expect to see us working on merging changes in
> both directions. In the mean time, please do poke around in our code,
> and, should you be inspired to do so, we'd be tickled pink if you
> wanted either to pull changes from us or submit patches back. We're
> just getting ramped up on operating in the open, so I apologize in
> advance for the inevitable hiccups.
It might be useful to know what revision(s) of Harmony code, the
equivalent modules in your repository are based on. Then it would be
easier for people to figure out where significant improvements have been
made.
(Possibly this question is too naive and your process for integrating
Harmony code is more complex but I'd be interested to know more about
it if that is the case.)
Regards,
Mark.
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
In ACQ there is a statement in Part III -
*If you have answered yes to any question above, and that implementation is
not available under a recognized Open Source license compatible with the
Apache License v2, you may not be a contributor to the related component
of Apache Harmony unless ...
*
So theoritically Harmony contributors can access Android's source code
because it is also ASLv2. If this is true, then there's nothing preventing
us from taking Android's code into Harmony. Apache requires us to state the
source of the code when committing though.
We might want to get some legal advice from the ASF?
-Jack
2008/12/30 Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>
> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers.
> The
> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
> > requires nothing except pure beauracy.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
> > aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
> >>
> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report
> back.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
> >>
> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Aleksey.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > С уважением,
> > Алексей Федотов,
> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
> >
>
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Nathan,
I agree with you that committers should be treated as sapient beings
who may take decisions about the code they commit. The story on
java.util.concurrent is a good example indeed. If my memory served me
well we finally committed it into our repository, didn't we?
Thanks.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> That might be over-simplifying the issue. We've taken the concurrency
> code without a submission - the code was asserted to be public domain.
> What we're discussing isn't public domain, but, in theory, is a
> compatible license.
>
> I believe the intent of the wiki article is to get new committers to
> think about what they're doing, which seems to be working.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Alexei Fedotov
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nathan, Jack,
>>
>> We have the following text at [1].
>>
>>> Always remember that you can never commit code that comes from someone else, even a co-worker. All code from someone else must be submitted by the copyright holder (either the author or author's employer, depending) as a JIRA, and then follow up with the required ACQs and BCC.
>>
>> Any committer who obey this statement cannot technically commit any
>> code from Google because
>> * it is not in JIRA;
>> * we don't have required ACQ and BCC.
>>
>> Well, we might think of revising the statement.
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Alexei Fedotov
>> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I have studied Google CLG ("Contributor License Grant") documents
>>> provided by Dan.
>>>
>>> <http://source.android.com/license/individual-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
>>> <http://source.android.com/license/corporate-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
>>>
>>> It seems that the "Project leads and [...] recipients of software
>>> distributed by the Project Leads [..] get the patent license". How can
>>> we prove that Apache is the recipient of software distributed by the
>>> Project Leads?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
>>>> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
>>>> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
>>>> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
>>>> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
>>>> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
>>>>
>>>> -Nathan
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
>>>> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hello folks,
>>>> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
>>>> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
>>>> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
>>>> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
>>>> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
>>>> > requires nothing except pure beauracy.
>>>> >
>>>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
>>>> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
>>>> > aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
>>>> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
>>>> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
>>>> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
>>>> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Aleksey.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > С уважением,
>>>> > Алексей Федотов,
>>>> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> С уважением,
>>> Алексей Федотов,
>>> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> С уважением,
>> Алексей Федотов,
>> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>>
>
--
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
That might be over-simplifying the issue. We've taken the concurrency
code without a submission - the code was asserted to be public domain.
What we're discussing isn't public domain, but, in theory, is a
compatible license.
I believe the intent of the wiki article is to get new committers to
think about what they're doing, which seems to be working.
-Nathan
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Alexei Fedotov
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan, Jack,
>
> We have the following text at [1].
>
>> Always remember that you can never commit code that comes from someone else, even a co-worker. All code from someone else must be submitted by the copyright holder (either the author or author's employer, depending) as a JIRA, and then follow up with the required ACQs and BCC.
>
> Any committer who obey this statement cannot technically commit any
> code from Google because
> * it is not in JIRA;
> * we don't have required ACQ and BCC.
>
> Well, we might think of revising the statement.
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I have studied Google CLG ("Contributor License Grant") documents
>> provided by Dan.
>>
>> <http://source.android.com/license/individual-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
>> <http://source.android.com/license/corporate-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
>>
>> It seems that the "Project leads and [...] recipients of software
>> distributed by the Project Leads [..] get the patent license". How can
>> we prove that Apache is the recipient of software distributed by the
>> Project Leads?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
>>> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
>>> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
>>> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
>>> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
>>> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
>>> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hello folks,
>>> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
>>> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
>>> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
>>> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
>>> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
>>> > requires nothing except pure beauracy.
>>> >
>>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
>>> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
>>> > aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
>>> >>
>>> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
>>> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
>>> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
>>> >>
>>> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
>>> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
>>> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Aleksey.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > С уважением,
>>> > Алексей Федотов,
>>> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> С уважением,
>> Алексей Федотов,
>> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением,
> Алексей Федотов,
> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Nathan, Jack,
We have the following text at [1].
> Always remember that you can never commit code that comes from someone else, even a co-worker. All code from someone else must be submitted by the copyright holder (either the author or author's employer, depending) as a JIRA, and then follow up with the required ACQs and BCC.
Any committer who obey this statement cannot technically commit any
code from Google because
* it is not in JIRA;
* we don't have required ACQ and BCC.
Well, we might think of revising the statement.
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Alexei Fedotov
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have studied Google CLG ("Contributor License Grant") documents
> provided by Dan.
>
> <http://source.android.com/license/individual-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
> <http://source.android.com/license/corporate-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
>
> It seems that the "Project leads and [...] recipients of software
> distributed by the Project Leads [..] get the patent license". How can
> we prove that Apache is the recipient of software distributed by the
> Project Leads?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
>> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
>> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
>> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
>> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
>> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
>> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello folks,
>> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
>> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
>> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
>> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
>> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
>> > requires nothing except pure beauracy.
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
>> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
>> > aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
>> >>
>> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
>> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
>> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
>> >>
>> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
>> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
>> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Aleksey.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > С уважением,
>> > Алексей Федотов,
>> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением,
> Алексей Федотов,
> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>
--
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
I have studied Google CLG ("Contributor License Grant") documents
provided by Dan.
<http://source.android.com/license/individual-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
<http://source.android.com/license/corporate-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
It seems that the "Project leads and [...] recipients of software
distributed by the Project Leads [..] get the patent license". How can
we prove that Apache is the recipient of software distributed by the
Project Leads?
Thanks.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
> > requires nothing except pure beauracy.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
> > aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
> >>
> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
> >>
> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Aleksey.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > С уважением,
> > Алексей Федотов,
> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
> >
--
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
(likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
-Nathan
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello folks,
> General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
> from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
> legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
> from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
> good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
> requires nothing except pure beauracy.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
> [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
> aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
>>
>> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
>> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
>> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
>>
>> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
>> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
>> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aleksey.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением,
> Алексей Федотов,
> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Hello folks,
General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
requires nothing except pure beauracy.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
[2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
>
> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
>
> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
--
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Aleksey Shipilev <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Dan, Nathan!
It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
> prevents Harmony committers [skip]
And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
Thanks,
Aleksey.
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
prevents Harmony committers from patching code from Android's class
library to Harmony's class library, correct? I don't know if this
would complicate things even more or not, but it would certainly allow
for Harmony to benefit from any improvements in a more timely fashion.
-Nathan
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Dan Bornstein <da...@google.com> wrote:
> I can't answer the procedural questions you raise, but I can add this:
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I volunteer to publish the diffs between Android's classlib and
>> Harmony, but we need to clarify these legal issues first. As the
>> background: as Android uses the classlib from 2007-04-11, there some
>> technical difficulty -- the Harmony classlib was updated a lot :)
>>
>>
>> "Android vs. Harmony-2007-04-11":
>> (line counts): 67689 total lines to merge
>
> The Android core library folks have been spending a lot of time lately
> trying to bring the core library sources up to date with respect to
> the last year and a half of Harmony development. It's not clear which
> branch of the Android code you diffed against, but the latest work in
> this regard is in the recently released "cupcake" branch. We are
> working on getting it all merged back to the mainline, and we are also
> working on getting more changes into the branch from our private
> repository. (Eventually, we expect to work on this stuff completely in
> the open, but we are still in transition.)
>
> <http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/dalvik.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/cupcake;hb=cupcake>
>
> -dan
>
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Dan Bornstein <da...@google.com>.
I can't answer the procedural questions you raise, but I can add this:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I volunteer to publish the diffs between Android's classlib and
> Harmony, but we need to clarify these legal issues first. As the
> background: as Android uses the classlib from 2007-04-11, there some
> technical difficulty -- the Harmony classlib was updated a lot :)
>
>
> "Android vs. Harmony-2007-04-11":
> (line counts): 67689 total lines to merge
The Android core library folks have been spending a lot of time lately
trying to bring the core library sources up to date with respect to
the last year and a half of Harmony development. It's not clear which
branch of the Android code you diffed against, but the latest work in
this regard is in the recently released "cupcake" branch. We are
working on getting it all merged back to the mainline, and we are also
working on getting more changes into the branch from our private
repository. (Eventually, we expect to work on this stuff completely in
the open, but we are still in transition.)
<http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/dalvik.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/cupcake;hb=cupcake>
-dan
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Aleksey Shipilev <al...@gmail.com>.
[reviving the thread]
Hi,
What about the Day of Reckoning is coming? :) I have a couple of
questions on procedure of tackling the patch transferring process from
Android to Harmony. Given both Android classlib and Harmony classlib
licensed under APLv2, the licenses are compatible. Harmony policy is
to have ACQ and ICLA signed for each contributor.
1. Can anyone who signed both ACQ/ICLA check out the Android trunk and
make the patches?
2. Or, should someone from Android staff sign the ACQ and ICLA?
3. Or, should we ask Android to make a one-time contribution of source code?
I volunteer to publish the diffs between Android's classlib and
Harmony, but we need to clarify these legal issues first. As the
background: as Android uses the classlib from 2007-04-11, there some
technical difficulty -- the Harmony classlib was updated a lot :)
"Android vs. Harmony-2007-04-11":
(line counts): 67689 total lines to merge
735 annotation.diff
2272 archive.diff
18 auth.diff
197 concurrent.diff
178 crypto.diff
2043 logging.diff
22494 luni.diff
8951 luni-kernel.diff
7948 math.diff
459 nio_char.diff
1820 nio.diff
2434 prefs.diff
7625 regex.diff
29 security.diff
743 security-kernel.diff
1021 sql.diff
574 suncompat.diff
6542 text.diff
1606 x-net.diff
"Harmony -2007-04-11 vs Harmony-HEAD":
(line counts): 184805 total lines of new code Android is probably missing ;)
994 annotation.diff
14924 archive.diff
4287 auth.diff
1321 concurrent.diff
1428 crypto.diff
6077 logging.diff
77396 luni.diff
2589 luni-kernel.diff
4613 math.diff
6283 nio_char.diff
4763 nio.diff
1757 prefs.diff
4192 regex.diff
19764 security.diff
565 security-kernel.diff
17193 sql.diff
635 suncompat.diff
8029 text.diff
7995 x-net.diff
Thanks,
Aleksey.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Dan Bornstein <da...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Mark Hindess
> <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> In the coming months, expect to see us working on merging changes in
>>> both directions. In the mean time, please do poke around in our code,
>>> and, should you be inspired to do so, we'd be tickled pink if you
>>> wanted either to pull changes from us or submit patches back. We're
>>> just getting ramped up on operating in the open, so I apologize in
>>> advance for the inevitable hiccups.
>>
>> It might be useful to know what revision(s) of Harmony code, the
>> equivalent modules in your repository are based on. Then it would be
>> easier for people to figure out where significant improvements have been
>> made.
>
> You may groan at the answer: We took a snapshot of the Harmony
> tip-of-tree code on 2007-04-11, and used that to augment the code we
> already had at the time (as opposed to replace our original code en
> masse). We later also selectively took updated files from Harmony,
> when it looked like there was significant progress (e.g., a module
> became complete or had a major overhaul). And we fixed a lot of bugs
> ourselves.
>
> All that being said, knowing that the Day Of Reckoning would someday
> come, we did try to make it reasonably easy to figure out where all
> the files came from and what intentional changes we made to Harmony
> code: First of all, the license headers for Harmony files are
> different than the headers for files that were made from scratch for
> Android. Also, we tried to explicitly mark every Harmony file we
> changed, mostly by marking added, changed, or removed code inline
> (grep for "// BEGIN android"), though we sometimes resorted to a
> general note at the top of file (e.g., when we overhauled the
> documentation for a class).
>
> Regards,
>
> -dan
>
Re: Android source: open for business
Posted by Dan Bornstein <da...@google.com>.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Mark Hindess
<ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> In the coming months, expect to see us working on merging changes in
>> both directions. In the mean time, please do poke around in our code,
>> and, should you be inspired to do so, we'd be tickled pink if you
>> wanted either to pull changes from us or submit patches back. We're
>> just getting ramped up on operating in the open, so I apologize in
>> advance for the inevitable hiccups.
>
> It might be useful to know what revision(s) of Harmony code, the
> equivalent modules in your repository are based on. Then it would be
> easier for people to figure out where significant improvements have been
> made.
You may groan at the answer: We took a snapshot of the Harmony
tip-of-tree code on 2007-04-11, and used that to augment the code we
already had at the time (as opposed to replace our original code en
masse). We later also selectively took updated files from Harmony,
when it looked like there was significant progress (e.g., a module
became complete or had a major overhaul). And we fixed a lot of bugs
ourselves.
All that being said, knowing that the Day Of Reckoning would someday
come, we did try to make it reasonably easy to figure out where all
the files came from and what intentional changes we made to Harmony
code: First of all, the license headers for Harmony files are
different than the headers for files that were made from scratch for
Android. Also, we tried to explicitly mark every Harmony file we
changed, mostly by marking added, changed, or removed code inline
(grep for "// BEGIN android"), though we sometimes resorted to a
general note at the top of file (e.g., when we overhauled the
documentation for a class).
Regards,
-dan