Thread: CVS Commit by andreas: disable function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony
Log Message:
-----------
disable function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony Caduto]
Modified Files:
--------------
pgadmin3/src/ui:
dlgFunction.cpp (r1.42 -> r1.43)
Attachment
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgadmin-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgadmin-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of > cvs@cvs.pgadmin.org > Sent: 08 October 2004 11:49 > To: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable > function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony > > Log Message: > ----------- > disable function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony Caduto] Andreas (and other committers); please use a message more like: disable function owner for pgsql < 8.0, per report from Tony Caduto I've used the [Name Here] convention for years to note the author of the change, just so we can see who actually wrote the code in question in case there are ever any licencing issues. Thanks, Dave
Dave Page wrote: > > > > Andreas (and other committers); please use a message more like: > > disable function owner for pgsql < 8.0, per report from Tony Caduto > > I've used the [Name Here] convention for years to note the author of the > change, just so we can see who actually wrote the code in question in > case there are ever any licencing issues. Apparently I misunderstood that when I saw this in CHANGELOG.txt (e.g. on 2004-09-16). I never got the idea of licensing issues on a hint that an attribute was missing, but thought it would be a good idea to reflect the appreciation of user's feedback about pgadmin problems. I don't object marking bug reporters in CHANGELOG.txt/cvs differently, but this seems not adequate for licensing issues. The nature of pgAdmin is quite clear, so anybody posting something here already does this under the Artistic Licence. For nontrivial extended code fragments contributed by non-devteam members we should add a comment "contributed by ..." in the sources. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 08 October 2004 12:14 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable > function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony > > > Apparently I misunderstood that when I saw this in > CHANGELOG.txt (e.g. > on 2004-09-16). Ahh, yes well, Ivan wrote that patch, so was creditted for it. The changelog is a bit arbitrary though - some contributors get their initials in their once they've become regulars, regardless of whether they are committers or not. CVS is the 'one true record'. > I never got the idea of licensing issues on a > hint that an attribute was missing, but thought it would be a > good idea to reflect the appreciation of user's feedback > about pgadmin problems. Oh, certainly we should note ppl who report stuff. I just want it to be clear that they reported it rather than fixed it. For many years, I've used the [Author's name] convention in our CVS. > I don't object marking bug reporters in CHANGELOG.txt/cvs > differently, but this seems not adequate for licensing > issues. The nature of pgAdmin is quite clear, so anybody > posting something here already does this under the Artistic > Licence. For nontrivial extended code fragments contributed > by non-devteam members we should add a comment "contributed > by ..." in the sources. Again, that's fine with me. My concern is twofold- 1) what if the licence ever proves unusuable in court, we may then need to try to contact authors of previous code to relicence it, or 2) if there is ever a patent or IP claim against our codebase, we may need to be able to tell who did what. Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>Sent: 08 October 2004 12:14 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable >>function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony >> >> >>Apparently I misunderstood that when I saw this in >>CHANGELOG.txt (e.g. >>on 2004-09-16). > > > Ahh, yes well, Ivan wrote that patch, so was creditted for it. The > changelog is a bit arbitrary though - some contributors get their > initials in their once they've become regulars, regardless of whether > they are committers or not. CVS is the 'one true record'. > > >>I never got the idea of licensing issues on a >>hint that an attribute was missing, but thought it would be a >>good idea to reflect the appreciation of user's feedback >>about pgadmin problems. > > > Oh, certainly we should note ppl who report stuff. I just want it to be > clear that they reported it rather than fixed it. For many years, I've > used the [Author's name] convention in our CVS. so [reporter] only in changelog, not cvs? > > >>I don't object marking bug reporters in CHANGELOG.txt/cvs >>differently, but this seems not adequate for licensing >>issues. The nature of pgAdmin is quite clear, so anybody >>posting something here already does this under the Artistic >>Licence. For nontrivial extended code fragments contributed >>by non-devteam members we should add a comment "contributed >>by ..." in the sources. > > > Again, that's fine with me. My concern is twofold- 1) what if the > licence ever proves unusuable in court, we may then need to try to > contact authors of previous code to relicence it, or 2) if there is ever > a patent or IP claim against our codebase, we may need to be able to > tell who did what. It's not acceptable that even most trivial patches should lead to the necessity to re-contact the issuer. This could simply paralyze us. In this case, I'd opt to reject any posted patch until the author has expressively granted everything to anybody forever. As soon as a bug is reported, usually its fix is trivial (thus we don't need 3rd party patches) or the posted patch isn't complete and needs rework because it reveals more problems. The idea of contacting people years later is not feasible either, as I have to realize while trying to contact all our translators. Certainly, one day in the future usage of the character sequence wxTE_PASSWORD in a file ending with xrc might get patented. But that would be the very moment I'd be burning my computers and start growing sheep and potatoes. Lemon and sugar cane for distilling purposes might be a good idea as well... Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 08 October 2004 13:03 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable > function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony > > so [reporter] only in changelog, not cvs? No - use a different convention for reporter. It'll be easier with the [Author] convention being applied consistently. > It's not acceptable that even most trivial patches should lead to the > necessity to re-contact the issuer. This could simply paralyze us. In > this case, I'd opt to reject any posted patch until the author has > expressively granted everything to anybody forever. As soon > as a bug is > reported, usually its fix is trivial (thus we don't need 3rd party > patches) or the posted patch isn't complete and needs rework > because it > reveals more problems. > > The idea of contacting people years later is not feasible > either, as I > have to realize while trying to contact all our translators. Maybe not, but if a court ever tells us to make a reasonable effort then at least we can do so. We already put the names in CVS for reporters and coders - I don't see the problem in noting them in a consistent way - it's not like it's any more work. > Certainly, one day in the future usage of the character sequence > wxTE_PASSWORD in a file ending with xrc might get patented. But that > would be the very moment I'd be burning my computers and > start growing > sheep and potatoes. Lemon and sugar cane for distilling > purposes might > be a good idea as well... Now you're just taking the p***. No, it's not patentable, but I can take one look at the changelog or CVS log and know that Ivan contributed the code, he didn't just report the problem. Let's just keep things consistent 'just in case'. Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > >>It's not acceptable that even most trivial patches should lead to the >>necessity to re-contact the issuer. This could simply paralyze us. In >>this case, I'd opt to reject any posted patch until the author has >>expressively granted everything to anybody forever. As soon >>as a bug is >>reported, usually its fix is trivial (thus we don't need 3rd party >>patches) or the posted patch isn't complete and needs rework >>because it >>reveals more problems. >> >>The idea of contacting people years later is not feasible >>either, as I >>have to realize while trying to contact all our translators. > > > Maybe not, but if a court ever tells us to make a reasonable effort then > at least we can do so. So you'd really try to contact Ivan if we may use that flag on the password control? And if we can't contact him we remove it? IMHO there must be a distinction between non-trivial patches/code contributions and code snippets used to demonstrate a bug and its fix. > > We already put the names in CVS for reporters and coders - I don't see > the problem in noting them in a consistent way - it's not like it's any > more work. Ok so how should we mention bug reporters in CHANGELOG.txt which is the most important and visible file for users to notice the feedback appreciation; shouldn't use too much space. > >>Certainly, one day in the future usage of the character sequence >>wxTE_PASSWORD in a file ending with xrc might get patented. But that >>would be the very moment I'd be burning my computers and >>start growing >>sheep and potatoes. Lemon and sugar cane for distilling >>purposes might >>be a good idea as well... > > > Now you're just taking the p***. No, it's not patentable, but I can take > one look at the changelog or CVS log and know that Ivan contributed the > code, he didn't just report the problem. I'm having a real hard time to call this a code contribution. Is an editor, adding a missing colon or article in a text he's reviewing, a co-author? Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 08 October 2004 13:34 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable > function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony > > So you'd really try to contact Ivan if we may use that flag on the > password control? And if we can't contact him we remove it? > IMHO there must be a distinction between non-trivial patches/code > contributions and code snippets used to demonstrate a bug and its fix. You are missing the point. If I am ordered by a court of law to do so, then I have no choice. The fact is, we credit authors of patches of any size, and reporters of notable bugs anyway. All I am asking is that we do so consistently. > I'm having a real hard time to call this a code contribution. If someone takes the time to understand the code, fix a bug and recompile and test, then yes, it's a contribution no matter how trivial the patch. That is distinctly different from someone simply reporting a bug. Anyway, I've got better things to do than argue about this. Please note contributors of any patches applied in the format [Author Name] in CVS and the changelog, and note reporters where appropriate in a form such as 'per report from Reporter Name'. Regards, Dave
Dave Page wrote: > > > Anyway, I've got better things to do than argue about this. Please note > contributors of any patches applied in the format [Author Name] in CVS > and the changelog, and note reporters where appropriate in a form such > as 'per report from Reporter Name'. Dave, I've been asking for a format that is space saving, for CHANGELOG.txt purposes. CVS has enough space. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 08 October 2004 14:33 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable > function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, I've got better things to do than argue about this. Please > > note contributors of any patches applied in the format > [Author Name] > > in CVS and the changelog, and note reporters where > appropriate in a > > form such as 'per report from Reporter Name'. > > Dave, I've been asking for a format that is space saving, for > CHANGELOG.txt purposes. CVS has enough space. Sorry, missed that line: How about Fixed foobar. rep: Fred Bloggs Or Fixed foobar (r: Fred Bloggs) As I said though, it's CVS I'm most concerned with. Regards, Dave.