[MENTOR] question about code donation - modified code with Apache license

[Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>]

Hi,

Flex uses a the Apache projects, batik, velocity and xerces in modified form.

For example, Batik 1.6 (which is not the current version) is used with some modifications.

When donating Flex code, should the batik directory include all of the batik 1.6 source files with the modification applied, or should it just include the files that were modified? If the later the build would have to download the distro, unzip it, apply the modification and the build the jar.

In either case, is it okay to add the build jar file to svn so that it doesn’t have to be rebuilt?  When and if the sources are ever modified again the jar can be updated.

Carol

Re: [MENTOR] question about code donation - modified code with Apache license

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> When donating Flex code, should the batik directory include all of the batik 1.6 source files with the modification applied, or should it just include the files that were modified? If the later the build would have to download the distro, unzip it, apply the modification and the build the jar.
>
> I would include all of the source files so it's easier for us to see
> exactly what we have.

I agree with that.

There was a discussion recently on the board@ list about projects
releasing code from other projects - the consensus is that the package
names should change when that happens, to avoid confusion with the
original project.

Of course, the best way is to contribute whatever patches are needed
to the original project, and maybe become a committer there in the
process.

If that's not possible (or maybe too late for the Flex cases now), I
would recommend changing the java package names to something under
org.apache.flex to avoid confusion.

>
>>... In either case, is it okay to add the build jar file to svn so that it doesn’t have to be rebuilt?  When and if the sources are ever modified again the jar can be updated.
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think I'd rather see the source
> added with build instructions, than a binary...

Agreed, binaries in svn are usually a bad idea. IMO those patched
projects should go under their own source tree, and maybe considered
as subprojects of Flex. If they use org.apache.flex package names,
they can be released so as not to have to build them every time.

-Bertrand

Re: [MENTOR] question about code donation - modified code with Apache license

[Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>]

On 3/12/12 10 :49AM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>> When donating Flex code, should the batik directory include all of the
>>batik 1.6 source files with the modification applied, or should it just
>>include the files that were modified? If the later the build would have
>>to download the distro, unzip it, apply the modification and the build
>>the jar.
>
>I would include all of the source files so it's easier for us to see
>exactly what we have.

I think this is the preferred method as well but it is a bit harder to
figure out the diffs from the original although a README would help.

>
>> In either case, is it okay to add the build jar file to svn so that it
>>doesn¹t have to be rebuilt?  When and if the sources are ever modified
>>again the jar can be updated.
>
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think I'd rather see the source
>added with build instructions, than a binary.

The sources to build the jar will be in svn.  I was just trying to avoid
having to build the jar every build since it hasn't changed in 3 years.

Carol

Re: [MENTOR] question about code donation - modified code with Apache license

[Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> When donating Flex code, should the batik directory include all of the batik 1.6 source files with the modification applied, or should it just include the files that were modified? If the later the build would have to download the distro, unzip it, apply the modification and the build the jar.

I would include all of the source files so it's easier for us to see
exactly what we have.

> In either case, is it okay to add the build jar file to svn so that it doesn’t have to be rebuilt?  When and if the sources are ever modified again the jar can be updated.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think I'd rather see the source
added with build instructions, than a binary.

Greg