"Comply with repository policy" ?
Hi. I've seen lots of checkins recently stating "Comply with repository policy". I haven't seen any announcement of a new official repository policy. Have I missed it? I'd be especially interested who exactly is responsible for changing code so that it complies with the new policy. How much of the initial work is automated and taken care of by some small group of people and what is left to the individual package maintainers? How are packages without maintainers handled? What about trunk vs. old branches? Thanks, Hanno
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I've seen lots of checkins recently stating "Comply with repository policy".
I haven't seen any announcement of a new official repository policy. Have I missed it?
I'd be especially interested who exactly is responsible for changing code so that it complies with the new policy. How much of the initial work is automated and taken care of by some small group of people and what is left to the individual package maintainers? How are packages without maintainers handled? What about trunk vs. old branches?
The testing for compliance and the automated part of the fixups are maintained in the 'zope.repositorypolicy' project: http://svn.zope.org/zope.repositorypolicy/trunk There is a nightly test run which checks out all top-level projects and verifies conformance (using the checker) against each projects "trunk" and "release branches." Projects which flunk that check show up on the "shame list" mailed to the zope-tests test aggregator, e.g.: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-April/013877.html That script ignores tags (we aren't rewriting history), as well as branches whose names don't look "release-like". I have been using the checker / fixer to get projects I feel responsibility for into complieance with the policy. The process normally involves: - Check out the project (easiest to do the whole tree). $ svn co $ZSVN/myproject - In the trunk and each "release" branch: o Run the checker script, e.g.:: $ cd myproject/trunk $ /path/to/zrp/bin/zope-org-check-project . ... <list of errors> ... o Run the automated fixups:: $ /path/to/zrp/bin/zope-org-fix-project . ... <list of automated fixups> ... o Find and fix anything the automated fixer couldn't handle. I nearly always have to fix up the 'author' in setup.py, for instance.: # Repeat until the checker runs clean $ /path/to/zrp/bin/zope-org-check-project . ... <errors which couldn't be fixed automatically> ... $ gvim setup.py # fix 'author', etc. o Add any files created by the fixer:: $ svn add LICENSE.txt COPYRIGHT.txt Repeat in each of the "release" branches, then check it all in: $ cd .. $ svn commit -m "Comply with repository policy." My theory is that I will clean up the stuff I care about, and others will clean up the stuff they care about. The stuff which stays on the "shame list" can be identified cleanly as "unmaintained." We can figure out what to do about them after some time period has elapsed. Note that I pulled one project (Zelenium) out of the repository altogether, because it contained third-party code I couldn't relicense to the ZPL: I moved its trunk over to Launchpad, and left only a stub behind in the zope.org SVN. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAku+FNkACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5WeACfUikaZKiJsbIoJ3UJ4a14PVQz K6sAoIlyzbnhdOZUu2uK5qKFTmYA75hc =GdR8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi! Tres Seaver wrote:
o Run the automated fixups::
$ /path/to/zrp/bin/zope-org-fix-project . ...<list of automated fixups> ...
Just in case *someone* cares: zope-org-fix-project was written for copyright headers with a specific layout. Depending on the actual layout it removes the sentence "All Rights Reserved." partially or completely. So depending on a layout difference (line break or not) it produces copyright headers with different content. Doesn't make any sense to me, but the people I already asked don't care. Cheers, Yuppie
On 04/09/2010 12:36 PM, yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Tres Seaver wrote:
o Run the automated fixups::
$ /path/to/zrp/bin/zope-org-fix-project . ...<list of automated fixups> ...
Just in case *someone* cares:
zope-org-fix-project was written for copyright headers with a specific layout. Depending on the actual layout it removes the sentence "All Rights Reserved." partially or completely.
So depending on a layout difference (line break or not) it produces copyright headers with different content.
Doesn't make any sense to me, but the people I already asked don't care.
Humm. You asked me privately but I haven't found time to respond yet. :) Christian -- Christian Theune · ct@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Tres Seaver wrote:
o Run the automated fixups::
$ /path/to/zrp/bin/zope-org-fix-project . ...<list of automated fixups> ...
Just in case *someone* cares:
zope-org-fix-project was written for copyright headers with a specific layout. Depending on the actual layout it removes the sentence "All Rights Reserved." partially or completely.
So depending on a layout difference (line break or not) it produces copyright headers with different content.
Doesn't make any sense to me, but the people I already asked don't care.
The "All Rights Reserved" is a little senseless, since the following language turns around and says that the files are covered by the ZPL. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAku/LvYACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7ecQCdEuEfp+0QRVjLBbmP+O3afM8r 31kAoJrM6SRtlxkew59Cx33jSN+Ip87D =jJ1M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi! Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote: So depending on a layout difference (line break or not) it produces copyright headers with different content.
Doesn't make any sense to me, but the people I already asked don't care.
The "All Rights Reserved" is a little senseless, since the following language turns around and says that the files are covered by the ZPL.
I'm not opposed to removing that phrase. What I don't like is the fact that it is removed randomly based on a bug in a script that is made for a different purpose. I think a change like that should be based on an official policy change, including new coding style guidelines: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/codingstyle/python-style.html#license-state... Cheers, Yuppie
On 04/09/2010 05:31 PM, yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote: So depending on a layout difference (line break or not) it produces copyright headers with different content.
Doesn't make any sense to me, but the people I already asked don't care.
The "All Rights Reserved" is a little senseless, since the following language turns around and says that the files are covered by the ZPL.
I'm not opposed to removing that phrase. What I don't like is the fact that it is removed randomly based on a bug in a script that is made for a different purpose.
Right. I'd consider that behaviour not a bug, but actually point out that all the examples in documentations that I have found considered the copyright to be stand-alone on a single line with the next line following to carry the "All rights reserved" remark. Although the tool screws up, the output of the tool really is intended to be reviewed by the person who does the checkin.
I think a change like that should be based on an official policy change, including new coding style guidelines: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/codingstyle/python-style.html#license-state...
I'd move this off from the topic of the tool being broken: if either of you would like to follow up on removing the "all rights reserved" from the header, then please acknowledge that and I'll pick it up (probably that needs to go to the foundation?!? I bet some lawyer wanted that phrase to be in there originally and I guess we have to ask the ZF board whether that part of the policy can be changed.) Christian -- Christian Theune · ct@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
Hi! Christian Theune wrote:
On 04/09/2010 05:31 PM, yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote: So depending on a layout difference (line break or not) it produces copyright headers with different content.
Doesn't make any sense to me, but the people I already asked don't care.
The "All Rights Reserved" is a little senseless, since the following language turns around and says that the files are covered by the ZPL.
I'm not opposed to removing that phrase. What I don't like is the fact that it is removed randomly based on a bug in a script that is made for a different purpose.
Right. I'd consider that behaviour not a bug, but actually point out that all the examples in documentations that I have found considered the copyright to be stand-alone on a single line with the next line following to carry the "All rights reserved" remark. Although the tool screws up, the output of the tool really is intended to be reviewed by the person who does the checkin.
I doubt looking at "examples in documentations" was the best approach. The tool modifies code, not documentation. Most headers in the Zope 2 world look different. They did have "All Rights Reserved." in the same line and now they are without that remark.
I think a change like that should be based on an official policy change, including new coding style guidelines: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/codingstyle/python-style.html#license-state...
I'd move this off from the topic of the tool being broken: if either of you would like to follow up on removing the "all rights reserved" from the header, then please acknowledge that and I'll pick it up (probably that needs to go to the foundation?!? I bet some lawyer wanted that phrase to be in there originally and I guess we have to ask the ZF board whether that part of the policy can be changed.)
I don't think it is important if "All Rights Reserved." is part of the header or not, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved But I think it is important to have a policy how the headers should look like. A policy accepted by everybody. Obviously the ZTK docs currently don't fulfill that role. It would reduce noise (pointless diffs) and make sure we don't waste time with rivaling cleanups. Automated header updates would also be easier. Cheers, Yuppie
Hi there, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I've seen lots of checkins recently stating "Comply with repository policy".
I haven't seen any announcement of a new official repository policy. Have I missed it?
Tres explained that very well, I think. I also did some comply-with-repos-policy checkins based on zope.repositorypolicy complaints and stumbled about one point: z.repositorypolicy requires to set the `author` field in setup.py to read ``Zope Foundation and Contributors``. While this is possibly a valid value for that field, I wonder why you cannot also set individual authors or groups of them. The problem: - Is the Zope Foundation really the author of the works checked in (in the juridical sense) or shouldn't we make a difference between an author (like "Mark Twain") and a copyright holder (like the "Mark Twain Foundation") stated in COPYRIGHT.txt? - Sometimes it is simply handy to know whom to ask directly when some problem occurs with a package. Yes, one can lookup the SVN history, but it's often much quicker to simply look in setup.py or on PyPI. Just curious, -- Uli
participants (5)
-
Christian Theune -
Hanno Schlichting -
Tres Seaver -
Uli Fouquet -
yuppie