On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:37 AM Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:29 AM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'd like to nudge (or pehaps push and shove) Apache NuttX toward > > making our first release as an Apache podling. Along those lines I'd > > like to revive this conversation... > > Personally I got a little turned away on this when we had the conversation > to work on this and start a path forward and immediately PRs got merged > including one I commented on that violated the plan. This is a difficult > task and we should not be making it harder on ourselves.
Can we let bygones be bygones and chart a path forward from where we are? Regarding PRs, should we temporarily stop merging any PRs (except bug-fixes) and focus everyone's efforts on licensing only? In other words, what specifically do you need from the rest of the PPMC? More below: On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:01 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We CANNOT just go and update the headers on files unless Greg is the only > >> author and all other non trivial contributors have signed some form of > >> CLA. I would feel very uncomfortable signing off on a release without a > >> review of these files that got changed, disclaimer or not. > >> > > Is it enough that if the following criteria meet: > > 1.The file is BSD license > > 2.The file is created by Greg > > 3.The file state that Greg is one and only one owner > > Then we can convert it's license to Apache. > > This was stated by a mentor in the past. So, based on that, yes, I > believe that that is all that is required. I think Brennan is talking about files that were changed to Apache 2.0 headers that possibly shouldn't have. So, I suggest that those should be re-checked. I think we need some sort of code we can 'grep' for, that we'll put in each source file as we process it. We need three different codes: o "LICENSE-CHANGE-RECHECK" -- means "this file has a Apache 2.0 header but that's sketchy so we need to re-check it" o "LICENSE-CHANGE-COMPLETE" -- means "this file has been checked and cleared" (and it has a Apache 2.0 header) o "LICENSE-CHANGE-PENDING" -- means "this file has complicated licensing that needs to be sorted out" The idea being to handle all the "low hanging fruits" first and then deal with all the "complicated licensing" ones later. Thoughts on that? More below: On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:46 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > The last release, 8.2, was from mid-November 2019. Releases had been > been made religiously every two months for years up until 8.2. We are > approaching 6 months with no releases. I am sure that the community is > well aware of this. I am well aware of this; hence, I think we all need to start pushing in this direction. We *need* to get back on track with scheduled releases (we can, as a community, decide if we want that to be every 2 months, or every N months, but we need to make that decision and then stick to it). Nathan
