From g.brandl at gmx.net Fri Mar 4 17:55:14 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:55:14 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only Message-ID: Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it overnight). The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. cheers, Georg From solipsis at pitrou.net Fri Mar 4 18:18:33 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:18:33 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1299259113.3721.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Since it was just asked on #python-dev: The current "cpython" repository is still a test repository, you can do your test commits against it; a new fresh repository will replace it once the conversion is over (so any important commits should be deferred until further announcement :-)). (I'm saying "commits" and not only "pushes" because if you base your commits on some of the test commits that were done in between, they will not push properly into the new repository) Regards Antoine. Le vendredi 04 mars 2011 ? 17:55 +0100, Georg Brandl a ?crit : > Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite > a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it > overnight). > > The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new > repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into > python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. > > Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. > > cheers, > Georg > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > From stefan at bytereef.org Fri Mar 4 18:21:26 2011 From: stefan at bytereef.org (Stefan Krah) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:21:26 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> Georg Brandl wrote: > Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite > a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it > overnight). > > The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new > repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into > python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. > > Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. Would it interfere with your plans if I commit an svnmerge for py3k-cdecimal? Or is this now impossible? Thanks, Stefan Krah From martin at v.loewis.de Fri Mar 4 18:37:30 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:37:30 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> References: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> Message-ID: <4D71235A.8040909@v.loewis.de> Am 04.03.2011 18:21, schrieb Stefan Krah: > Georg Brandl wrote: >> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite >> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it >> overnight). >> >> The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new >> repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into >> python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. >> >> Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. > > Would it interfere with your plans if I commit an svnmerge for > py3k-cdecimal? Or is this now impossible? It's impossible now; the repository is read-only (IIUC) Regards, Martin From g.brandl at gmx.net Fri Mar 4 18:47:11 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:47:11 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> References: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> Message-ID: <4D71259F.9030504@gmx.net> On 04.03.2011 18:21, Stefan Krah wrote: > Georg Brandl wrote: >> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite >> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it >> overnight). >> >> The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new >> repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into >> python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. >> >> Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. > > Would it interfere with your plans if I commit an svnmerge for > py3k-cdecimal? Or is this now impossible? It was impossible, but now I removed the block again. Please do your svnmerge thing quickly :) Georg From stefan at bytereef.org Fri Mar 4 18:56:26 2011 From: stefan at bytereef.org (Stefan Krah) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:56:26 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <4D71259F.9030504@gmx.net> References: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> <4D71259F.9030504@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20110304175626.GA27876@sleipnir.bytereef.org> Georg Brandl wrote: > On 04.03.2011 18:21, Stefan Krah wrote: > > Georg Brandl wrote: > >> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite > >> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it > >> overnight). > >> > >> The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new > >> repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into > >> python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. > >> > >> Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. > > > > Would it interfere with your plans if I commit an svnmerge for > > py3k-cdecimal? Or is this now impossible? > > It was impossible, but now I removed the block again. Please do > your svnmerge thing quickly :) Thanks! Done in r88752. Let the conversion begin. :) Stefan Krah From g.brandl at gmx.net Fri Mar 4 19:10:41 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:10:41 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <4D71235A.8040909@v.loewis.de> References: <20110304172126.GA26909@sleipnir.bytereef.org> <4D71235A.8040909@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On 04.03.2011 18:37, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > Am 04.03.2011 18:21, schrieb Stefan Krah: >> Georg Brandl wrote: >>> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite >>> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it >>> overnight). >>> >>> The majority of the work will be done tomorrow: pushing the new >>> repositories live, enabling and testing all integration into >>> python.org services and probably more work on the new devguide. >>> >>> Please join us in #python-dev if you have questions. >> >> Would it interfere with your plans if I commit an svnmerge for >> py3k-cdecimal? Or is this now impossible? > > It's impossible now; the repository is read-only (IIUC) It's actually not that bad since hgsubversion allows incremental conversion. So in theory SVN could remain open until the conversion process has reached recent commits, but I'd rather not have confusion whether a certain commit made it into hg or not. Georg From raymond.hettinger at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 21:15:41 2011 From: raymond.hettinger at gmail.com (Raymond Hettinger) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:15:41 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite > a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it > overnight). Thanks for stepping up and getting this done. Raymond From guido at python.org Fri Mar 4 21:21:39 2011 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:21:39 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> References: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > >> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite >> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it >> overnight). > > Thanks for stepping up and getting this done. +1 -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) From steve at holdenweb.com Fri Mar 4 21:34:44 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:34:44 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> References: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02F3F280-D900-4BD5-9720-82E7EA32BBCF@holdenweb.com> On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > >> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite >> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it >> overnight). > > > Thanks for stepping up and getting this done. +1 This is *long* overdue. Thanks, Georg. regards Steve From brett at python.org Fri Mar 4 23:25:47 2011 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:25:47 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: <02F3F280-D900-4BD5-9720-82E7EA32BBCF@holdenweb.com> References: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> <02F3F280-D900-4BD5-9720-82E7EA32BBCF@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:34, Steve Holden wrote: > On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > > > >> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite > >> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it > >> overnight). > > > > > > Thanks for stepping up and getting this done. > > > +1 > > This is *long* overdue. Thanks, Georg. > And thanks to Antoine as well. And Dirkjan for starting it. -Brett > > regards > Steve > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncoghlan at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 09:39:09 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 18:39:09 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: References: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> <02F3F280-D900-4BD5-9720-82E7EA32BBCF@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:34, Steve Holden wrote: >> This is *long* overdue. Thanks, Georg. > > And thanks to Antoine as well. And Dirkjan for starting it. And Brett for starting us down this path oh so many moons ago :) Now to make sure the laptop has hg installed and a clone set up before I fly out next week... Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From g.brandl at gmx.net Sat Mar 5 09:56:44 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 09:56:44 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: References: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> <02F3F280-D900-4BD5-9720-82E7EA32BBCF@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: On 05.03.2011 09:39, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:34, Steve Holden wrote: >>> This is *long* overdue. Thanks, Georg. >> >> And thanks to Antoine as well. And Dirkjan for starting it. > > And Brett for starting us down this path oh so many moons ago :) > > Now to make sure the laptop has hg installed and a clone set up before > I fly out next week... You might not need to, thanks to Brett's Dev-in-a-box project... Georg From ncoghlan at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 10:31:03 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 19:31:03 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] SVN repository is now read-only In-Reply-To: References: <260CFB9F-B127-4FB3-A15A-33AFD64781FB@gmail.com> <02F3F280-D900-4BD5-9720-82E7EA32BBCF@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > You might not need to, thanks to Brett's Dev-in-a-box project... True, but I need to dust off the laptop and get everything up to date before I leave, anyway (I really don't use it much when I'm not travelling). May as well set up a new clone while I'm at it. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From solipsis at pitrou.net Sat Mar 5 15:18:42 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:18:42 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] New repositories Message-ID: <1299334722.3692.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hello, Creation of the final hg repositories on hg.python.org is under way, so please no test commits anymore. Thank you Antoine. From g.brandl at gmx.net Sat Mar 5 15:20:38 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:20:38 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] New repositories In-Reply-To: <1299334722.3692.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299334722.3692.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 05.03.2011 15:18, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello, > > Creation of the final hg repositories on hg.python.org is under way, so > please no test commits anymore. And since testing things out if you're new to Mercurial is still a good idea, we'll create another clone in "sandbox/cpython" as the default testing grounds. Georg From g.brandl at gmx.net Sat Mar 5 15:30:21 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:30:21 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] New repositories In-Reply-To: References: <1299334722.3692.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 05.03.2011 15:20, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 05.03.2011 15:18, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Creation of the final hg repositories on hg.python.org is under way, so >> please no test commits anymore. > > And since testing things out if you're new to Mercurial is still a > good idea, we'll create another clone in "sandbox/cpython" as the > default testing grounds. To clarify the reason for this: of course everybody can also create their own clone cpython using the "server-side clone" feature at http://hg.python.org/cpython/. However, this repo has the same consistency-checking hooks enabled as the /cpython repository, whereas custom clones start out with no hooks. Georg From tjreedy at udel.edu Sat Mar 5 19:06:33 2011 From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:06:33 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] New repositories In-Reply-To: References: <1299334722.3692.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D727BA9.6060809@udel.edu> On 3/5/2011 9:30 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 05.03.2011 15:20, Georg Brandl wrote: >> On 05.03.2011 15:18, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Creation of the final hg repositories on hg.python.org is under way, so >>> please no test commits anymore. >> >> And since testing things out if you're new to Mercurial is still a >> good idea, we'll create another clone in "sandbox/cpython" as the >> default testing grounds. Great, I was going to ask for this. Since I never mastered the (Tortoise) SVN merge-conflict-resolution tool, I would like to practice with merge-resolution of intentional conflicts between something pushed by someone else (and pulled by me) and my working copy. > To clarify the reason for this: of course everybody can also create > their own clone cpython using the "server-side clone" feature at > http://hg.python.org/cpython/. However, this repo has the same > consistency-checking hooks enabled as the /cpython repository, whereas > custom clones start out with no hooks. Terry From solipsis at pitrou.net Sun Mar 6 09:42:02 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 09:42:02 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall Message-ID: <1299400922.3699.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hello, Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). Regards Antoine. From victor.stinner at haypocalc.com Sun Mar 6 10:55:18 2011 From: victor.stinner at haypocalc.com (Victor Stinner) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:55:18 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? Message-ID: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> Hi, I do sometimes commit patches written by someone else. I tried to always add him/her to Misc/ACKS and in the changelog entry (Misc/NEWS). With git, it's possible to record an author different than the commiter. In Mercurial, I see a --user option. Can I use this option to commit a patch written by someone else? Or is there another option for that? If I use hg commit --user, is it possible to see somewhere that the commiter was me? Victor From g.brandl at gmx.net Sun Mar 6 11:23:05 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:23:05 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> Message-ID: On 06.03.2011 10:55, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > I do sometimes commit patches written by someone else. I tried to always > add him/her to Misc/ACKS and in the changelog entry (Misc/NEWS). With > git, it's possible to record an author different than the commiter. In > Mercurial, I see a --user option. > > Can I use this option to commit a patch written by someone else? Or is > there another option for that? > > If I use hg commit --user, is it possible to see somewhere that the > commiter was me? Basically, no. If you want to honor contributors, put their name into the commit message. Georg From ncoghlan at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 12:48:14 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:48:14 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall In-Reply-To: <1299400922.3699.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299400922.3699.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello, > > Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both > bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like > to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). I suspect that "pusher" has a few too many negative connotations to be a popular alternative :) I've certainly used "core dev" as an alternative shorthand for "someone with the right to publish changes to the official CPython repository" that is neutral regarding the VCS technology. I've seen others using it that way, as well. I'd also say "committers" is still fine, despite technically being incorrect now. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From dirkjan at ochtman.nl Sun Mar 6 13:25:00 2011 From: dirkjan at ochtman.nl (Dirkjan Ochtman) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 13:25:00 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:23, Georg Brandl wrote: >> If I use hg commit --user, is it possible to see somewhere that the >> commiter was me? > > Basically, no. ?If you want to honor contributors, put their name into > the commit message. You can still see who pushed it in the python-checkins emails. Cheers, Dirkjan From steve at holdenweb.com Sun Mar 6 16:40:17 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:40:17 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> Message-ID: <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> People who have not signed a contributor agreement should not be listed as code authors: this leads to non-auditable contributions and a lack of clarity as to intellectual property ownership that can have negative consequences. If you want to make someone an author, confirm they are contributors before you do so, please. regards Steve On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > I do sometimes commit patches written by someone else. I tried to always > add him/her to Misc/ACKS and in the changelog entry (Misc/NEWS). With > git, it's possible to record an author different than the commiter. In > Mercurial, I see a --user option. > > Can I use this option to commit a patch written by someone else? Or is > there another option for that? > > If I use hg commit --user, is it possible to see somewhere that the > commiter was me? > > Victor > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From solipsis at pitrou.net Sun Mar 6 16:47:01 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:47:01 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <1299426421.3699.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 10:40 -0500, Steve Holden a ?crit : > People who have not signed a contributor agreement should not be > listed as code authors: this leads to non-auditable contributions and > a lack of clarity as to intellectual property ownership that can have > negative consequences. If you want to make someone an author, confirm > they are contributors before you do so, please. Is that some kind of joke? From steve at holdenweb.com Sun Mar 6 20:42:27 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:42:27 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <1299440037.3699.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> <1299426421.3699.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <81524B85-F828-48F8-BD50-D6794D94DB64@holdenweb.com> <1299433520.3699.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8B0B24D6-76B6-4132-89F2-2117D45F1287@holdenweb.com> <1299436815.3699.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4933AF0D-BABE-43C5-A8A9-5486F8260291@holdenweb.com> <1299440037.3699.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2EA00EB3-2BC0-4EA2-B523-2FD89063A8D9@holdenweb.com> On Mar 6, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >>> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 13:19 -0500, Steve Holden a ?crit : >>>> In short, if someone isn't able to sign a contributor agreement we >>>> should ask ourselves whether it's really appropriate to incorporate >>>> their contributions into the code base. >>> >>> What do you mean with "isn't able"? Surely everyone is physically and >>> technically able to do so :) >>> Now, if someone (such as Anatoly) actively *refuses* to sign an >>> agreement when asked to, I agree they might not be reliable. But I don't >>> think that's the case we're talking about. >> >> I meant "isn't able" in the sense that the would-be contributor >> doesn't have rights in the code they seek to contribute. > > Ok, but how do you know that, if they still sign an agreement? There isn't much we can do about people willfully lying to us. This does not relieve us of the obligation to try and ensure that contributions are covered by a contributor agreement. > >>>> If you make checkins of other people's code you should be as certain >>>> as you can that you have the right to include it - since your >>>> contributor agreement states that you assign to the PSF the right to >>>> relicense your contributions. >>> >>> I don't understand your reasoning. When I check in someone else's work, >>> the author of the checkin is mostly someone else (I guess under the hood >>> it may be more complicated, in French law it might be called a >>> "composite work" or a "collective work", but let's try to ignore that). >>> So *my* contributor agreement can't apply to the checkin since it is >>> only valid for my own contributions. >> >> We'll need to get advice on this: if you are adding the code to the >> code base then it is surely covered by your contributor agreement >> (assuming you are adding the "this code provided under a contributor >> agreement" notice as requested in the developer notes). If you aren't, >> then shouldn't you be? > > Sorry, I don't understand your question: shouldn't I be what? > Shouldn't you be adding the notice? > As for the "this code provided under a contributor agreement" notice, I > haven't seen it added in a long time (neither by me nor by anyone else). > I'm not convinced it should pollute our commit messages and/or our code > files (since it would end up basically anywhere, or at least that's the > desired effect). > >> If you aren't happy that you have the rights to do that then I don't >> believe you should be checking in those contributions because they may >> threaten to encumber code we are licensing to third parties. > > I'm not unhappy with it. I'm simply quite sure that an agreement I have > signed cannot be forced on a third-party (the submitter and main author > of the checked in code) who hasn't signed it. Legally, I mean. > >>>> Wouldn't it be easier and more straightforward to have these people >>>> sign contributor agreements even if you continue to check in their >>>> code? >>> >>> Well, between mandating the signature of an agreement, and not mandating >>> said signature, I think the easiest and most straightforward (both for >>> them - who have to sign it -, for us - who have to check that an >>> agreement exists -, and for the PSF - who has to gather and record said >>> agreements) is the latter. All other things being equal, that is. >> >> "The latter" meaning requiring contributor agreements? I hope so, but >> language is rarely as clear as we would wish. > > No, "the latter" meant "not mandating said signature". OK. As far as I am concerned, adding code to the repository that is not covered by a contributor agreement is a recipe for disaster, and I would like to hear what other committers think. I'm not sure how or when the committers list was dropped from our conversation, but I hope you don't mind me adding it back for that purpose. regards Steve From nad at acm.org Sun Mar 6 22:08:53 2011 From: nad at acm.org (Ned Deily) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:08:53 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall References: <1299400922.3699.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In article <1299400922.3699.6.camel at localhost.localdomain>, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both > bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like > to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). Regardless of the term, +1. Ross has contributed a lot of good stuff recently and has been very helpful on the tracker as well. -- Ned Deily, nad at acm.org From rdmurray at bitdance.com Sun Mar 6 23:13:11 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:13:11 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall In-Reply-To: References: <1299400922.3699.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20110306221311.15C0B24A3A1@kimball.webabinitio.net> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:08:53 -0800, Ned Deily wrote: > In article <1299400922.3699.6.camel at localhost.localdomain>, > Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both > > bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like > > to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). > > Regardless of the term, +1. Ross has contributed a lot of good stuff > recently and has been very helpful on the tracker as well. I haven't reviewed at his patch or tracker history myself, but he is someone I have on my mental list as "probable future committer" based on the activity I've noticed. So if Antoine says it's time, I say +1. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com From ziade.tarek at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 23:22:16 2011 From: ziade.tarek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:22:16 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall In-Reply-To: References: <1299400922.3699.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both >> bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like >> to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). > > I suspect that "pusher" has a few too many negative connotations to be > a popular alternative :) > > I've certainly used "core dev" as an alternative shorthand for > "someone with the right to publish changes to the official CPython > repository" that is neutral regarding the VCS technology. I've seen > others using it that way, as well. I'd also say "committers" is still > fine, despite technically being incorrect now. I would say that "commiter" is still a valid term in a DVCS. - Commiting means adding new revisions into a repository - Pushing is just the action to copy some revisions from a repository to another A "Python commiter" is authorized to commit revisions to the central hg.python.org/cpython repository, whether it's by copying them from another repository, or by doing a direct commit (via push). The latter happens to be unnecessary, Cheers Tarek > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -- Tarek Ziad? | http://ziade.org From rdmurray at bitdance.com Sun Mar 6 23:24:19 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:24:19 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <2EA00EB3-2BC0-4EA2-B523-2FD89063A8D9@holdenweb.com> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> <1299426421.3699.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <81524B85-F828-48F8-BD50-D6794D94DB64@holdenweb.com> <1299433520.3699.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8B0B24D6-76B6-4132-89F2-2117D45F1287@holdenweb.com> <1299436815.3699.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4933AF0D-BABE-43C5-A8A9-5486F8260291@holdenweb.com> <1299440037.3699.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2EA00EB3-2BC0-4EA2-B523-2FD89063A8D9@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <20110306222419.499F124A3A3@kimball.webabinitio.net> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:42:27 -0500, Steve Holden wrote: > OK. As far as I am concerned, adding code to the repository that is > not covered by a contributor agreement is a recipe for disaster, and I > would like to hear what other committers think. I'm not sure how or > when the committers list was dropped from our conversation, but I hope > you don't mind me adding it back for that purpose. When we've had these discussions before, it was basically left up to our judgement what constituted "enough code" to make worrying about a contributor agreement necessary. Certainly it does not seem that bug fix commits of a few changed lines or even tens of changed lines is worth worrying about: how can fixing our own code incorporate someone else's copyrighted work? I think you'd be hard pressed to get such a claim by a judge. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong.) Bigger chunks, especially features, yes. Perhaps we have not been as good about checking on agreements in those cases as we should have been. Anyone care to review the last N changesets to find out? Has any progress been made on an electronically signable agreement and/or adding "posting a patch to this tracker means you have the right to contribute it and you do contribute it" language to the tracker? -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com From ncoghlan at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 00:46:57 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:46:57 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <20110306222419.499F124A3A3@kimball.webabinitio.net> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> <1299426421.3699.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <81524B85-F828-48F8-BD50-D6794D94DB64@holdenweb.com> <1299433520.3699.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8B0B24D6-76B6-4132-89F2-2117D45F1287@holdenweb.com> <1299436815.3699.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4933AF0D-BABE-43C5-A8A9-5486F8260291@holdenweb.com> <1299440037.3699.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2EA00EB3-2BC0-4EA2-B523-2FD89063A8D9@holdenweb.com> <20110306222419.499F124A3A3@kimball.webabinitio.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:24 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > Has any progress been made on an electronically signable agreement > and/or adding "posting a patch to this tracker means you have the right > to contribute it and you do contribute it" language to the tracker? Note that the latter point (regarding implicit declarations of "right to submit" and actual submission when posting patches to the tracker) is something we're already effectively relying on when incorporating posted patches. The fact that such patches are almost always derivative of the Python source in the first place also significantly reduces the chance of legal hassles. The situation with committers is different, because each of us can push stuff straight into the source tree without going via the tracker. The only way to keep our noses clean from a legal perspective at that point is to have a contributor agreement in place that covers everything we commit to the main repository. The contributor-agreements-for-non-committers issue mainly comes up when there is a substantial piece of code that was originally written for something else, that is suggested as a patch to CPython (e.g. the locale neutral number parsing and formatting routines). Still, Steve's right: when we commit something, *we're* the ones making the assertion that the change is small enough not to need a contributor agreement, so the commit record should reflect that. If something seems iffy, bring it up on python-dev (preferably cc'ing VanL directly as well). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From solipsis at pitrou.net Mon Mar 7 19:48:33 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:48:33 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <20110306222419.499F124A3A3@kimball.webabinitio.net> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> <1299426421.3699.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <81524B85-F828-48F8-BD50-D6794D94DB64@holdenweb.com> <1299433520.3699.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8B0B24D6-76B6-4132-89F2-2117D45F1287@holdenweb.com> <1299436815.3699.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4933AF0D-BABE-43C5-A8A9-5486F8260291@holdenweb.com> <1299440037.3699.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2EA00EB3-2BC0-4EA2-B523-2FD89063A8D9@holdenweb.com> <20110306222419.499F124A3A3@kimball.webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <1299523713.3770.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 17:24 -0500, R. David Murray a ?crit : > Has any progress been made on an electronically signable agreement > and/or adding "posting a patch to this tracker means you have the right > to contribute it and you do contribute it" language to the tracker? +1. That would be a very worthwhile thing for the PSF to spend time on, and could solve all practical issues with the contributor agreement. With a preference with David's latter proposition. Regards Antoine. From jnoller at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 04:19:11 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 22:19:11 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Use hg commit --user? In-Reply-To: <1299523713.3770.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299405318.30509.2.camel@marge> <3C49D03D-B75E-4535-B711-F02D4E2908E5@holdenweb.com> <1299426421.3699.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <81524B85-F828-48F8-BD50-D6794D94DB64@holdenweb.com> <1299433520.3699.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8B0B24D6-76B6-4132-89F2-2117D45F1287@holdenweb.com> <1299436815.3699.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4933AF0D-BABE-43C5-A8A9-5486F8260291@holdenweb.com> <1299440037.3699.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2EA00EB3-2BC0-4EA2-B523-2FD89063A8D9@holdenweb.com> <20110306222419.499F124A3A3@kimball.webabinitio.net> <1299523713.3770.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 17:24 -0500, R. David Murray a ?crit : >> Has any progress been made on an electronically signable agreement >> and/or adding "posting a patch to this tracker means you have the right >> to contribute it and you do contribute it" language to the tracker? > > +1. That would be a very worthwhile thing for the PSF to spend time on, > and could solve all practical issues with the contributor agreement. > With a preference with David's latter proposition. > > Regards > > Antoine. I've raised this question on the board level in the past, and will do so again at the members meeting. jesse. From g.rodola at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 09:53:19 2011 From: g.rodola at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Giampaolo_Rodol=E0?=) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:53:19 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall Message-ID: Antoine Pitrou ha scritto: > Hello, > > Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both >bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like > to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). > > Regards > > Antoine. +1 from me as well. http://bugs.python.org/issue10812 and others such as sendfile() addition are some valuable pieces of work. --- Giampaolo http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib/ http://code.google.com/p/psutil/ From raymond.hettinger at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 09:57:06 2011 From: raymond.hettinger at gmail.com (Raymond Hettinger) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:57:06 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A87DA92-38DA-4EB3-8A84-648481A65A33@gmail.com> On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:53 AM, Giampaolo Rodol? wrote: > Antoine Pitrou ha scritto: >> Hello, >> >> Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both >> bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like >> to propose him as a committer (is this still the appropriate word?). >> >> Regards >> >> Antoine. > > +1 from me as well. > http://bugs.python.org/issue10812 and others such as sendfile() > addition are some valuable pieces of work. Do we have a signed contributor agreement? Raymond -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From g.brandl at gmx.net Tue Mar 8 12:32:12 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:32:12 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Roundup integration hook added Message-ID: Thanks to Kelsey Hightower, we now have a hook that notifies Roundup of commit messages that reference issues. *** To make this work, you need to use a hg user name in the form *** "User Name " AND make sure Roundup knows of this *** email address. To check this, go to "Your Details" in Roundup *** and make sure the address is either in "E-mail address" or in *** "Alternate E-mail addresses". Then if you put "#12345", "issue 12345" or "issue12345" in a commit message, this commit message will be added as a comment on the Roundup issue with a link to the changeset when it is pushed to the central repo. If you prefix this with one of "close", "closing", "closed", "closes" (or the same verb forms of "fix"), the issue will also be closed automatically. Please let us know of any bugs you encounter. Georg From solipsis at pitrou.net Tue Mar 8 15:19:55 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:19:55 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall In-Reply-To: <9A87DA92-38DA-4EB3-8A84-648481A65A33@gmail.com> References: <9A87DA92-38DA-4EB3-8A84-648481A65A33@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1299593995.3763.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond Hettinger a ?crit : > > Do we have a signed contributor agreement? I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether he did or not. Regards Antoine. From steve at holdenweb.com Tue Mar 8 16:27:20 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:27:20 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall In-Reply-To: <1299593995.3763.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <9A87DA92-38DA-4EB3-8A84-648481A65A33@gmail.com> <1299593995.3763.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <573181BC-FE94-4CA9-A3D1-AAEC268A408A@holdenweb.com> Pat should know if we have received one. regards Steve On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond Hettinger a ?crit : > >> >> Do we have a signed contributor agreement? > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't already done > so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether he did or not. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 12:20:27 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:20:27 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] Message-ID: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Pat Campbell ?: Antoine Pitrou Cc: Steve Holden Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500 Hi All: I have not received a contributor agreement for Ross Lagerwall yet. It maybe in transit at this point. However, if the need arises another can be sent directly to me at: PSF c/o Pat Campbell 6306 Treetop Circle Tampa, Florida 33617 Thanks, Pat On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Absolutely no idea. Either very recently, or earlier. Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 11:07 -0500, Pat Campbell a ?crit : > Hi All: > > When should it have come in? > > Thanks, > Pat > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Steve Holden > wrote: > Pat should know if we have received one. > > regards > Steve > > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond Hettinger a > ?crit : > > > >> > >> Do we have a signed contributor agreement? > > > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't > already done > > so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether he did > or not. > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > python-committers mailing list > > python-committers at python.org > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > > > > > -- > Pat Campbell > PSF Administrator/Secretary > patcam at python.org -- Pat Campbell PSF Administrator/Secretary patcam at python.org From ncoghlan at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 12:29:22 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 06:29:22 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? I believe so (cc'ed Van to double check). I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF nomination - is it enough for the contributor's agreement as well? Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 12:32:45 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:32:45 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1299670365.3749.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 06:29 -0500, Nick Coghlan a ?crit : > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? > > I believe so (cc'ed Van to double check). > > I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF > nomination - is it enough for the contributor's agreement as well? ? I've never sent any photo to the PSF... (and I don't intend doing so) From mal at egenix.com Wed Mar 9 12:34:52 2011 From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:34:52 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? Yes. Developers uploading copyrightable patches to the tracker need to sign the contributor agreement before those patches can make it into the core - even before they get direct commit rights. Otherwise, the PSF does not have the right to redistribute that code under the PSF license. http://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#sign-a-contributor-agreement > -------- Message transf?r? -------- > De: Pat Campbell > ?: Antoine Pitrou > Cc: Steve Holden > Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500 > > Hi All: > > I have not received a contributor agreement for Ross Lagerwall yet. It > maybe > in transit at this point. However, if the need arises another can be > sent > directly to me at: > > PSF > c/o Pat Campbell > 6306 Treetop Circle > Tampa, Florida 33617 > > Thanks, > Pat > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > > Absolutely no idea. Either very recently, or earlier. > > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 11:07 -0500, Pat Campbell a ?crit : > > > Hi All: > > > > When should it have come in? > > > > Thanks, > > Pat > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Steve Holden > > > wrote: > > Pat should know if we have received one. > > > > regards > > Steve > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond > Hettinger a > > ?crit : > > > > > >> > > >> Do we have a signed contributor agreement? > > > > > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he > hadn't > > already done > > > so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > he did > > or not. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Antoine. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > python-committers mailing list > > > python-committers at python.org > > > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pat Campbell > > PSF Administrator/Secretary > > patcam at python.org > > > > > > -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Mar 09 2011) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ From ncoghlan at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 12:38:05 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 06:38:05 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299670365.3749.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299670365.3749.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF >> nomination - is it enough for the contributor's agreement as well? > > ? I've never sent any photo to the PSF... (and I don't intend doing so) "... of the signed nomination form ..." (sorry, original was unnecessarily terse - the digital photo was basically the modern day alternative to faxing or mailing the form). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 12:46:12 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:46:12 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> Message-ID: <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Ok, so, since the PSF appears to have a meeting very soon, can I request that the PSF gets its act together and solves the "electronic contributor agreement" issue once and for all? The way we core developers are prevented from working properly is **totally** unacceptable. Thank you Antoine. Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 12:34 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg a ?crit : > Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? > > Yes. > > Developers uploading copyrightable patches to the tracker > need to sign the contributor agreement before those patches > can make it into the core - even before they get direct commit > rights. > > Otherwise, the PSF does not have the right to redistribute that > code under the PSF license. > > http://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#sign-a-contributor-agreement > > > -------- Message transf?r? -------- > > De: Pat Campbell > > ?: Antoine Pitrou > > Cc: Steve Holden > > Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500 > > > > Hi All: > > > > I have not received a contributor agreement for Ross Lagerwall yet. It > > maybe > > in transit at this point. However, if the need arises another can be > > sent > > directly to me at: > > > > PSF > > c/o Pat Campbell > > 6306 Treetop Circle > > Tampa, Florida 33617 > > > > Thanks, > > Pat > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou > > wrote: > > > > Absolutely no idea. Either very recently, or earlier. > > > > > > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 11:07 -0500, Pat Campbell a ?crit : > > > > > Hi All: > > > > > > When should it have come in? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Steve Holden > > > > > wrote: > > > Pat should know if we have received one. > > > > > > regards > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond > > Hettinger a > > > ?crit : > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Do we have a signed contributor agreement? > > > > > > > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he > > hadn't > > > already done > > > > so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > > he did > > > or not. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Antoine. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > python-committers mailing list > > > > python-committers at python.org > > > > > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Pat Campbell > > > PSF Administrator/Secretary > > > patcam at python.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > From steve at holdenweb.com Wed Mar 9 13:00:46 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:00:46 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> Fortunately this *can be discussed at the members' meeting. Since I don't always follow python-dev I wasn't aware this was blocking commits - the process is pretty straightforward as it is. Guido established the Foundation to do what it's doing, but we would love to do it more efficiently. But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a contributor agreement very simply. However, specific ideas about how to action this request are also welcome. We certainly don't want to hold up development. Unfortunately we want encumbered code even less. regards Steve On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:46 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Ok, so, since the PSF appears to have a meeting very soon, can I request > that the PSF gets its act together and solves the "electronic > contributor agreement" issue once and for all? > > The way we core developers are prevented from working properly is > **totally** unacceptable. > > Thank you > > Antoine. > > > > Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 12:34 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg a ?crit : >> Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> >>> What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? >> >> Yes. >> >> Developers uploading copyrightable patches to the tracker >> need to sign the contributor agreement before those patches >> can make it into the core - even before they get direct commit >> rights. >> >> Otherwise, the PSF does not have the right to redistribute that >> code under the PSF license. >> >> http://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#sign-a-contributor-agreement >> >>> -------- Message transf?r? -------- >>> De: Pat Campbell >>> ?: Antoine Pitrou >>> Cc: Steve Holden >>> Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall >>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500 >>> >>> Hi All: >>> >>> I have not received a contributor agreement for Ross Lagerwall yet. It >>> maybe >>> in transit at this point. However, if the need arises another can be >>> sent >>> directly to me at: >>> >>> PSF >>> c/o Pat Campbell >>> 6306 Treetop Circle >>> Tampa, Florida 33617 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Pat >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou >>> wrote: >>> >>> Absolutely no idea. Either very recently, or earlier. >>> >>> >>> >>> Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 11:07 -0500, Pat Campbell a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi All: >>>> >>>> When should it have come in? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Pat >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Steve Holden >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> Pat should know if we have received one. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond >>> Hettinger a >>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we have a signed contributor agreement? >>>>> >>>>> I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he >>> hadn't >>>> already done >>>>> so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether >>> he did >>>> or not. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Antoine. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> python-committers mailing list >>>>> python-committers at python.org >>>>> >>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pat Campbell >>>> PSF Administrator/Secretary >>>> patcam at python.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PSF-Members mailing list > PSF-Members at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-members From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 13:04:07 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:04:07 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 07:00 -0500, Steve Holden a ?crit : > But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a > contributor agreement very simply. That's like saying "anyone with access to a printer can send a patch via postal mail". Sorry, but we are in the 21th century now. > We certainly don't want to hold up development. Unfortunately, that's what you are doing. You are also making people frustrated. Please solve the issue. From jnoller at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:08:42 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:08:42 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: We have to have contributor agreements on file for core committers. On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? > > > > -------- Message transf?r? -------- > De: Pat Campbell > ?: Antoine Pitrou > Cc: Steve Holden > Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500 > > Hi All: > > I have not received a contributor agreement for Ross Lagerwall yet. It > maybe > in transit at this point. However, if the need arises another can be > sent > directly to me at: > > PSF > c/o Pat Campbell > 6306 Treetop Circle > Tampa, Florida 33617 > > Thanks, > Pat > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > > Absolutely no idea. Either very recently, or earlier. > > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 11:07 -0500, Pat Campbell a ?crit : > >> Hi All: >> >> When should it have come in? >> >> Thanks, >> Pat >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Steve Holden > >> wrote: >> Pat should know if we have received one. >> >> regards >> Steve >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >>> Le mardi 08 mars 2011 ? 00:57 -0800, Raymond > Hettinger a >> ?crit : >>> >>>> >>>> Do we have a signed contributor agreement? >>> >>> I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he > hadn't >> already done >>> so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > he did >> or not. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Antoine. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> python-committers mailing list >>> python-committers at python.org >>> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Pat Campbell >> PSF Administrator/Secretary >> patcam at python.org > > > > > > > -- > Pat Campbell > PSF Administrator/Secretary > patcam at python.org > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From ncoghlan at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:12:14 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:12:14 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 07:00 -0500, Steve Holden a ?crit : >> But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a >> contributor agreement very simply. > > That's like saying "anyone with access to a printer can send a patch via > postal mail". > Sorry, but we are in the 21th century now. Print form, fill in form, sign form, take photo, upload photo, email photo isn't all that onerous a task. Compared to setting up GPG (or something of that ilk), it's positively straightforward. Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital signature technologies and their uncertain place in law. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From ncoghlan at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:25:26 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:25:26 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital > signature technologies and their uncertain place in law. What we *could* do though, is have a better explanation of the reasons behind the relatively archaic process for submission of contributor forms. Alternatively, something that occurred to me is that every core dev *must* set up SSH correctly to push changes. So why not have a text version of the form and require people to push a signed copy of their completed form as a text file to that repository before their access to the main repository is switched on? We're relying on the SSH keys to identify submitters of contributions, so sure we could rely on them for the form sign-off as well... Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From jnoller at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:25:38 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:25:38 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Steve Holden wrote: > Fortunately this *can be discussed at the members' meeting. Since I don't always follow python-dev I wasn't aware this was blocking commits - the process is pretty straightforward as it is. Guido established the Foundation to do what it's doing, but we would love to do it more efficiently. But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a contributor agreement very simply. > > However, specific ideas about how to action this request are also welcome. We certainly don't want to hold up development. Unfortunately we want encumbered code even less. > > regards > ?Steve > I've brought this up at board meetings in the past. Specific ideas even, and I have not received a very warm welcome. The quickest path? Don't roll our own, and use something like what RackSpace (a multi million dollar company and a large army of lawyers) uses for OpenStack: https://rackspace.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=ABCZR72YX57B Seems pretty cut and dry to me. We should *not* implement our own. There is also: http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html So, this is definite fodder for the members meeting this week. I believe we have an actionable path. Jesse From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 13:37:50 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:37:50 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 07:25 -0500, Nick Coghlan a ?crit : > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital > > signature technologies and their uncertain place in law. > > What we *could* do though, is have a better explanation No, sorry, that doesn't parse. We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole committers freely. If e-commerce or PayPal is satisfied with a *totally automated Web process*, then the PSF shouldn't need *physical* paperwork with *manual approval*. That's all. From jnoller at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:39:36 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:39:36 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 07:25 -0500, Nick Coghlan a ?crit : >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital >> > signature technologies and their uncertain place in law. >> >> What we *could* do though, is have a better explanation > > No, sorry, that doesn't parse. > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole > committers freely. While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret what "other projects do" as "doing it right". From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 13:42:20 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:42:20 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> > > No, sorry, that doesn't parse. > > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about > > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole > > committers freely. > > While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret > what "other projects do" as "doing it right". They definitely do it right from a social perspective. From ncoghlan at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:46:14 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:46:14 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse. >> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about >> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole >> > committers freely. >> >> While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret >> what "other projects do" as "doing it right". > > They definitely do it right from a social perspective. Which is made significantly easier by the fact that a lot of them couldn't care less about the legal perspective :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From jnoller at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 13:46:44 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:46:44 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse. >> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about >> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole >> > committers freely. >> >> While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret >> what "other projects do" as "doing it right". > > They definitely do it right from a social perspective. > > And probably not from a legal perspective. Ask anyone who has tried to relicense a project and attempted to track down old willy nilly contributors, or been forced to got and get CLAs after the fact. I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not. From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 13:53:38 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:53:38 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> > I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and > simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not. I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the most sensitive to such issues? $ hg churn -c -d 2010 georg at python.org 1087 ********************************* solipsis at pitrou.net 987 ****************************** benjamin at python.org 959 ***************************** victor.stinner at haypocalc.com 696 ********************* dickinsm at gmail.com 629 ******************* ezio.melotti at gmail.com 462 ************** rdmurray at bitdance.com 404 ************ orsenthil at gmail.com 368 *********** python at rcn.com 331 ********** florent.xicluna at gmail.com 281 ********* brian.curtin at gmail.com 243 ******* alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com 237 ******* fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk 195 ****** ronaldoussoren at mac.com 192 ****** merwok at netwok.org 180 ***** ziade.tarek at gmail.com 168 ***** bcannon at gmail.com 160 ***** martin at v.loewis.de 160 ***** vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk 159 ***** amk at amk.ca 125 **** ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp 121 **** greg at mad-scientist.com 119 **** stefan at bytereef.org 98 *** eric at trueblade.com 93 *** doko at ubuntu.com 85 *** g.rodola at gmail.com 82 ** barry at python.org 77 ** ncoghlan at gmail.com 47 * amauryfa at gmail.com 36 * daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com 34 * tjreedy at udel.edu 26 * steven.bethard at gmail.com 23 * lukasz at langa.pl 23 * lars at gustaebel.de 23 * collinw at gmail.com 22 * alexandre at peadrop.com 20 * theller at ctypes.org 20 * fdrake at acm.org 19 * jcea at jcea.es 18 * jafo at tummy.com 16 mail at timgolden.me.uk 16 exarkun at divmod.com 15 pjenvey at underboss.org 12 larry at hastings.org 11 brian at sweetapp.com 11 kristjan at ccpgames.com 11 mal at egenix.com 11 gh at ghaering.de 9 jackdied at gmail.com 8 richard at commonground.com.au 7 skip at pobox.com 6 dirkjan at ochtman.nl 6 askh at opera.com 6 jyasskin at gmail.com 5 dmalcolm at redhat.com 4 pje at telecommunity.com 4 asmodai at in-nomine.org 4 arigo at tunes.org 4 jnoller at gmail.com 3 doug.hellmann at gmail.com 3 kbk at shore.net 1 facundobatista at gmail.com 1 From eric at trueblade.com Wed Mar 9 13:57:20 2011 From: eric at trueblade.com (Eric Smith) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:57:20 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> On 3/9/2011 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and >> simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not. > > I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of > committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the > most sensitive to such issues? I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Are you saying the PSF shouldn't bother making sure the copyright to python is unencumbered? Eric. From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 14:07:43 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:07:43 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> Message-ID: <1299676063.3749.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> > I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Are you saying the PSF shouldn't > bother making sure the copyright to python is unencumbered? Eric, let me quote myself again: Ok, so, since the PSF appears to have a meeting very soon, can I request that the PSF gets its act together and solves the "electronic contributor agreement" issue once and for all? The way we core developers are prevented from working properly is **totally** unacceptable. Thank you I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about religions, be it christianism or intellectual property. If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP rights", not mine. And if you can't pull it off, then admit you failed in your duty and stop bothering us core developers. From jnoller at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 14:07:56 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:07:56 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and >> simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not. > > I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of > committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the > most sensitive to such issues? > Antoine; if you don't want the help - I don't need to help. From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 14:10:36 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:10:36 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1299676236.3749.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 ? 08:07 -0500, Jesse Noller a ?crit : > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > >> I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and > >> simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not. > > > > I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of > > committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the > > most sensitive to such issues? > > > > Antoine; if you don't want the help - I don't need to help. I have started this thread by asking that the PSF solves the situation. That is the very definition of asking for help in my book. From steve at holdenweb.com Wed Mar 9 14:23:46 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:23:46 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299676063.3749.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> <1299676063.3749.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6499E317-4F23-4439-B8C6-04D071D360E1@holdenweb.com> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about > religions, be it christianism or intellectual property. > If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get > in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP > rights", not mine. > As I have already pointed out in this thread, the PSF is not a "self-proclaimed" anything. It was established by Guido precisely to ensure that the IP was unencumbered. So Guido clearly thinks the rule is needed. I think Jesse has pointed us to some very satisfactory potential solutions. I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Electronic forms are easier to deal with, but I seriously doubt their absence has lost as much development effort as the total collective developer time already expended on this thread :-) regards Steve From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Mar 9 14:35:48 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:35:48 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <6499E317-4F23-4439-B8C6-04D071D360E1@holdenweb.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> <1299676063.3749.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6499E317-4F23-4439-B8C6-04D071D360E1@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <1299677748.3749.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hello Steve, > > I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about > > religions, be it christianism or intellectual property. > > If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get > > in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP > > rights", not mine. > > > As I have already pointed out in this thread, the PSF is not a > "self-proclaimed" anything. It was established by Guido precisely to > ensure that the IP was unencumbered. So Guido clearly thinks the rule > is needed. I would like to hear Guido's opinion today about this. Python's development is not the same as it was 10 years ago, and the world has changed too. > I think Jesse has pointed us to some very satisfactory potential > solutions. I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The reason I am making a mountain out of a slightly oversized molehill is that otherwise it seems people here don't care to solve the issue, and instead keep patronizing about how the current process is fine (which it is!... as long as it isn't actually applied...). > Electronic forms are easier to deal with, but I seriously doubt their > absence has lost as much development effort as the total collective > developer time already expended on this thread :-) Well, I agree that not so much development effort has been lost because of us checking contributor agreements, but I think there's a reason, and you might not like it. Regards Antoine. From guido at python.org Wed Mar 9 14:30:40 2011 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:40 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse. >> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about >> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole >> > committers freely. >> >> While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret >> what "other projects do" as "doing it right". > > They definitely do it right from a social perspective. Another way of doing it right from a social perspective is to give someone commit privileges even while they are still figuring out how to send in their agreement via snail mail. It is enough for the pile of agreements to be eventually consistent. Assuming you all trust the new committer, there is no need for a transaction where the receipt of the agreement must have occurred before they can be given access to the system -- as long as it's indicated that it can be withdrawn if they don't send in the agreement. In the mean time, yes, we need a web-based way of submitting agreements. I believe I have already mentioned once before that Google has a simple web form for individual contributors (http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html) and only requires a faxed signature for corporate contributors (where there are actual lawyers on the contributing side). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) From guido at python.org Wed Mar 9 14:45:15 2011 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:45:15 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299677748.3749.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> <1299676063.3749.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6499E317-4F23-4439-B8C6-04D071D360E1@holdenweb.com> <1299677748.3749.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello Steve, > >> > I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about >> > religions, be it christianism or intellectual property. >> > If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get >> > in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP >> > rights", not mine. >> > >> As I have already pointed out in this thread, the PSF is not a >> "self-proclaimed" anything. It was established by Guido precisely to >> ensure that the IP was unencumbered. So Guido clearly thinks the rule >> is needed. > > I would like to hear Guido's opinion today about this. Python's > development is not the same as it was 10 years ago, and the world has > changed too. If anything, we need the forms more than 10 years ago. BUT unlike then it's acceptable to fill out a web form. >> I think Jesse has pointed us to some very satisfactory potential >> solutions. I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. > > The reason I am making a mountain out of a slightly oversized molehill > is that otherwise it seems people here don't care to solve the issue, > and instead keep patronizing about how the current process is fine > (which it is!... as long as it isn't actually applied...). > >> Electronic forms are easier to deal with, but I seriously doubt their >> absence has lost as much development effort as the total collective >> developer time already expended on this thread :-) > > Well, I agree that not so much development effort has been lost because > of us checking contributor agreements, but I think there's a reason, and > you might not like it. TBH I don't think that the implementation of the web form ought to be the PSF directors' job. However approval of this change in process and of the exact legal text that people agree to on the web form is. One of the developers or some other volunteer can do the implementation -- just don't make it live until the PSF's lawyer has approved the text. (Though if it was me I'd just copy the Google forms, scratch out Google, and write in Python in crayon.) Please do record which version of the form is agreed to. As a temporary solution for new contributors, if you trust them, give them their permissions and ask them to fill the paperwork later (soon, but not as a condition for the permissions). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) From mal at egenix.com Wed Mar 9 16:18:46 2011 From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:18:46 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D779A56.9020205@egenix.com> I really don't understand what all the fuzz is about. We have a two step process: * Step 1 What the PSF initially needs is an acknowledgement of the contributor (committer or not) that he or she is willing to accept and enter into the agreement. This can be done by checking a checkbox on the bug tracker, a comment on the tracker, an inline note in the patch, an emailed form, via IRC, etc. The only important aspect in this step is to make the contributor aware of the requirement and get his/her agreement to follow up on it. * Step 2 The paperwork can then be done as second step - in whatever way is legally needed. The only important aspect with this second step is that the PSF does get to know about the new contribution. Since Pat is not following the checkins list, an email to her would be nice. * Possible issues and solutions If anything, I believe it's the legal form we require that's giving people second thoughts, not finding a fax machine or post box :-) http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ Or perhaps, they are not aware of the requirement at all, since the tracker doesn't mention it on the submission page: http://bugs.python.org/issue?@template=item A simple note like this on the tracker would go a long way: """ Please be aware that we can only accept patches for Python if you are willing to sign a contributor agreement with the PSF (linked to the contrib forms). The agreement is necessary in order for the PSF to be able to legally distribute your contribution together with the Python distribution. If you have questions, please write to contributor-agreement at python.org. """ contributor-agreement at python.org could be aliased to psf at python.org, pat at python.org, or even better, a PSF committee taking care of this business. For new core committers, I believe that step 1 and 2 ought to really already have happened long before they even become core committers. After all, submitting code is one of the more important requirements we have for them, right ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Mar 09 2011) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ From steve at holdenweb.com Wed Mar 9 17:39:52 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:39:52 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <4D779A56.9020205@egenix.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D779A56.9020205@egenix.com> Message-ID: <7995B103-2682-46F3-8731-CC7C89ED123E@holdenweb.com> On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:18 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > contributor-agreement at python.org could be aliased to > psf at python.org, pat at python.org, or even better, a > PSF committee taking care of this business. Lest this strike fear into the hearts of members I would point out that it would operate much like the Trademarks Committee, which never meets, but handles inquiries about the use of PSF trademarks (yes, not everyone agrees with trademarks, but if you have to have them then there has to be a legal owner) by email and responds to requests without reference to the Board. Effectively this would give people who understand the agreement the opportunity to assist those who don't. regards Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcea at jcea.es Thu Mar 10 01:50:21 2011 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 01:50:21 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299677748.3749.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674540.3749.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299675218.3749.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D777930.2050903@trueblade.com> <1299676063.3749.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6499E317-4F23-4439-B8C6-04D071D360E1@holdenweb.com> <1299677748.3749.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D78204D.1030906@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/03/11 14:35, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Well, I agree that not so much development effort has been lost because > of us checking contributor agreements, but I think there's a reason, and > you might not like it. I sent my signature in 2008 (I faxed it to USA). Some time after, somebody asked me to send it again, because they couldn't find it anymore (they got it initially, because I got my commit privileges). So, somebody lost it, and somebody found it was missing and ask for it again. So, somebody was paying attention and investing time being sure everything is ok. That said, I have used the same PGP key for 15 years. Would be nice if a digital signature would be enough. I am probably an exception, nevertheless. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTXggTZlgi5GaxT1NAQJHOAP+MBRI75AlVzBk+r27qGIE4H2+4xXp9RnX 655MESIJkn5SflWaKLoRZWPYFzPsnm4spAzcFgwD2pcKjzTjSS7N+UOaJ8eDCrxf K1bs/E4k5BI/1gYFXDK6e7MKLQnO7ySZX/3hvC/L945odIf+asz6cMkor85bScV6 6jgbv0r/bx4= =x29g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From martin at v.loewis.de Thu Mar 10 04:28:26 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:28:26 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to have to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to put his signature on a piece of paper? Regards, Martin From steve at holdenweb.com Thu Mar 10 06:45:09 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:45:09 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. > > Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to > have to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to > put his signature on a piece of paper? > Because Antoine is not entitled to include you in his "we" does not entitle you to put him in the singular. I doubt he is the only member who finds it difficult to understand why we are still using paper. It's not exactly trailblazing, is it? regards Steve From martin at v.loewis.de Thu Mar 10 11:46:45 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:46:45 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> Am 10.03.11 00:45, schrieb Steve Holden: > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > >>> We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. >> >> Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to have >> to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to put his >> signature on a piece of paper? >> > Because Antoine is not entitled to include you in his "we" does not > entitle you to put him in the singular. I doubt he is the only member > who finds it difficult to understand why we are still using paper. I'd still like to understand whether this issue actually blocks the case at hand. Antoine originally wrote > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't > already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > he did or not. So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. That would also be a *solution*. Regards, Martin From kbk at shore.net Thu Mar 10 14:25:32 2011 From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:25:32 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Contirbutor Agreements In-Reply-To: <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain><4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de><727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <1299763532.22079.1428243225@webmail.messagingengine.com> We received a contributor agreement from Boris Feld, Belfort, France by postal mail. I will send it by postal mail to our Administrator. I have not seen an agreement from Ross. If he sent one, I'd suggest he re-send it by attaching a scan to an email, given that it appears time is pressing. The Feld agreement took several weeks to wend its way to me. KBK On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:46 -0500, " Martin v. L?wis " wrote: > Am 10.03.11 00:45, schrieb Steve Holden: > > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > > > >>> We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. > >> > >> Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to have > >> to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to put his > >> signature on a piece of paper? > >> > > Because Antoine is not entitled to include you in his "we" does not > > entitle you to put him in the singular. I doubt he is the only member > > who finds it difficult to understand why we are still using paper. > > I'd still like to understand whether this issue actually blocks the > case at hand. Antoine originally wrote > > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't > > already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > > he did or not. > > So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that > he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. > That would also be a *solution*. > > Regards, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > From solipsis at pitrou.net Thu Mar 10 16:04:10 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:04:10 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't > > already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > > he did or not. > > So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that > he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. > That would also be a *solution*. Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money where your mouth is. I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF to solve paperwork. From martin at v.loewis.de Thu Mar 10 17:25:19 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:25:19 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4D78FB6F.2050104@v.loewis.de> >> So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that >> he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. >> That would also be a *solution*. > > Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the > process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money > where your mouth is. > > I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF > to solve paperwork. Just for the record: neither am I. However, sending an email to Ross wasn't that difficult. Regards, Martin From solipsis at pitrou.net Thu Mar 10 17:43:50 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:43:50 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <4D78FB6F.2050104@v.loewis.de> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78FB6F.2050104@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <1299775430.3808.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 ? 11:25 -0500, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : > >> So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that > >> he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. > >> That would also be a *solution*. > > > > Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the > > process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money > > where your mouth is. > > > > I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF > > to solve paperwork. > > Just for the record: neither am I. However, sending an email to Ross > wasn't that difficult. Right, sending a mail isn't difficult. Do you volunteer to do the necessary work (sending emails, following up on them, etc.) each and every time the need for requesting and checking contributor agreements arises? Thank you Antoine. From steve at holdenweb.com Thu Mar 10 17:54:43 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:54:43 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <1299775430.3808.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78FB6F.2050104@v.loewis.de> <1299775430.3808.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <29ECAE2F-505D-4AB0-85DF-74BAC211FB8F@holdenweb.com> On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 ? 11:25 -0500, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : >>>> So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that >>>> he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. >>>> That would also be a *solution*. >>> >>> Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the >>> process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money >>> where your mouth is. >>> >>> I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF >>> to solve paperwork. >> >> Just for the record: neither am I. However, sending an email to Ross >> wasn't that difficult. > > Right, sending a mail isn't difficult. Do you volunteer to do the > necessary work (sending emails, following up on them, etc.) each and > every time the need for requesting and checking contributor agreements > arises? > > Thank you Antoine: Your point will be more effectively made without this continual sniping at anyone who responds to you. That wasn't intended as a serious question, was it? UYou know Martin won't have time to do that. As a matter of fact, though, the PSF has an administrator who is perfectly capable of doing just this if it's the best process we have, she just hasn't been involved in processing new developers in the past. So Pat should probably get involved in defining what the process is. Let's work towards a solution, please. regards Steve From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:00:04 2011 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:00:04 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: <29ECAE2F-505D-4AB0-85DF-74BAC211FB8F@holdenweb.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78FB6F.2050104@v.loewis.de> <1299775430.3808.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <29ECAE2F-505D-4AB0-85DF-74BAC211FB8F@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Steve Holden wrote: > On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 ? 11:25 -0500, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit : >>>>> So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that >>>>> he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. >>>>> That would also be a *solution*. >>>> >>>> Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the >>>> process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money >>>> where your mouth is. >>>> >>>> I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF >>>> to solve paperwork. >>> >>> Just for the record: neither am I. However, sending an email to Ross >>> wasn't that difficult. >> >> Right, sending a mail isn't difficult. Do you volunteer to do the >> necessary work (sending emails, following up on them, etc.) each and >> every time the need for requesting and checking contributor agreements >> arises? >> >> Thank you > > Antoine: > > Your point will be more effectively made without this continual sniping at anyone who responds to you. That wasn't intended as a serious question, was it? UYou know Martin won't have time to do that. > > As a matter of fact, though, the PSF has an administrator who is perfectly capable of doing just this if it's the best process we have, she just hasn't been involved in processing new developers in the past. So Pat should probably get involved in defining what the process is. > > Let's work towards a solution, please. > > regards > ?Steve I have spoken to Van Lindberg, and he and I will be driving/discussing the best approach for electronic CLAs/signing. We will drive this on a PSF level. From solipsis at pitrou.net Thu Mar 10 18:04:31 2011 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:04:31 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall] In-Reply-To: References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com> <1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com> <1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de> <727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com> <4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> <1299769450.3808.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4D78FB6F.2050104@v.loewis.de> <1299775430.3808.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <29ECAE2F-505D-4AB0-85DF-74BAC211FB8F@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <1299776671.3808.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 ? 12:00 -0500, Jesse Noller a ?crit : > I have spoken to Van Lindberg, and he and I will be driving/discussing > the best approach for electronic CLAs/signing. We will drive this on a > PSF level. Thank you! From kbk at shore.net Sun Mar 13 13:46:23 2011 From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:46:23 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Contirbutor Agreements In-Reply-To: <1299763532.22079.1428243225@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1299669627.3749.3.camel@localhost.localdomain><4D7765DC.6040803@egenix.com><1299671172.3749.8.camel@localhost.localdomain><87F39B2E-07F5-480C-B3CC-5E8F9FCD8041@holdenweb.com><1299672247.3749.11.camel@localhost.localdomain><1299674270.3749.18.camel@localhost.localdomain><4D78455A.1090000@v.loewis.de><727C3298-20CB-45F9-B443-86284250F604@holdenweb.com><4D78AC15.8050002@v.loewis.de> <1299763532.22079.1428243225@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1300020383.23963.1429202129@webmail.messagingengine.com> We have now received a contributor agreement by fax from Ross Lagerwall. KBK On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:25 -0500, "Kurt B. Kaitorser" wrote: > We received a contributor agreement from Boris Feld, Belfort, France by > postal mail. > > I will send it by postal mail to our Administrator. > > I have not seen an agreement from Ross. If he sent one, I'd suggest he > re-send it by attaching a scan to an email, given that it appears time > is pressing. The Feld agreement took several weeks to wend its way to > me. > > KBK > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:46 -0500, " Martin v. L?wis " > wrote: > > Am 10.03.11 00:45, schrieb Steve Holden: > > > > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > > > > > >>> We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. > > >> > > >> Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to have > > >> to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to put his > > >> signature on a piece of paper? > > >> > > > Because Antoine is not entitled to include you in his "we" does not > > > entitle you to put him in the singular. I doubt he is the only member > > > who finds it difficult to understand why we are still using paper. > > > > I'd still like to understand whether this issue actually blocks the > > case at hand. Antoine originally wrote > > > > > I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't > > > already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether > > > he did or not. > > > > So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that > > he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. > > That would also be a *solution*. > > > > Regards, > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > > python-committers mailing list > > python-committers at python.org > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -- KBK From martin at v.loewis.de Wed Mar 16 04:22:19 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:22:19 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker Message-ID: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> I added a boolean flag to the bug tracker indicating what user accounts belong to committers. Please check that the flag is set in Your Details, Is Committer. If it's not, please let me know. Regards, Martin From alex.gaynor at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 04:45:27 2011 From: alex.gaynor at gmail.com (Alex Gaynor) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:45:27 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:22 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > I added a boolean flag to the bug tracker indicating what user accounts > belong to committers. Please check that the flag is set in Your Details, > Is Committer. If it's not, please let me know. > > Regards, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > I'm not showing as a committer (also not showing as CLA received, but I suppose that's different). Alex -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire) "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fdrake at acm.org Wed Mar 16 05:09:34 2011 From: fdrake at acm.org (Fred Drake) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:09:34 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:22 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > added a boolean flag to the bug tracker indicating what user accounts belong > to committers. I'm showing as a committer, but not that my contributor form has been received. I've pointed out the later problem before (some time ago), and there was no response. I know I've provided one. If someone could check on that, I'd appreciate it. If I need to submit a new form, I can do that as well. ? -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.? ? "A storm broke loose in my mind."? --Albert Einstein From martin at v.loewis.de Wed Mar 16 05:11:44 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:11:44 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> > I'm not showing as a committer (also not showing as CLA received, but I > suppose that's different). I couldn't find you at first since you didn't put your last name into the tracker. I have fixed that as well now. As for the CLA - this is a known issue; this isn't getting updated regularly. Regards, Martin From eliben at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 05:18:55 2011 From: eliben at gmail.com (Eli Bendersky) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:18:55 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:09, Fred Drake wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:22 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" > wrote: > > added a boolean flag to the bug tracker indicating what user accounts > belong > > to committers. > > I'm showing as a committer, but not that my contributor form has been > received. I've pointed out the later problem before (some time ago), > and there was no response. I know I've provided one. > Same here. I have a confirmation email from Kurt Kaiser (Jan 27th 2011) that my contributor agreement was received. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tjreedy at udel.edu Wed Mar 16 07:05:57 2011 From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:05:57 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <4D805345.1000403@udel.edu> On 3/16/2011 12:18 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:09, Fred Drake > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:22 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" > > wrote: > > added a boolean flag to the bug tracker indicating what user > accounts belong > > to committers. > > I'm showing as a committer, but not that my contributor form has been > received. I've pointed out the later problem before (some time ago), > and there was no response. I know I've provided one. > > > Same here. I have a confirmation email from Kurt Kaiser (Jan 27th 2011) > that my contributor agreement was received. > Eli Ditto, except that contributor form was a few years ago I believe. I don't think info has been properly transferred to tracker. From steve at holdenweb.com Wed Mar 16 11:14:42 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:14:42 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> On Mar 16, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > >> I'm not showing as a committer (also not showing as CLA received, but I >> suppose that's different). > > I couldn't find you at first since you didn't put your last name into the tracker. I have fixed that as well now. > > As for the CLA - this is a known issue; this isn't getting updated regularly. > Time it did, then. Anything the Foundation can do to help? regards Steve From martin at v.loewis.de Wed Mar 16 13:49:40 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:49:40 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <4D80B1E4.4070903@v.loewis.de> >> As for the CLA - this is a known issue; this isn't getting updated regularly. >> > Time it did, then. Anything the Foundation can do to help? AMK did once enter all known contrib forms into it, up to a certain point. The plan then was that Pat should keep it updated. That never happened, I believe. Regards, Martin From barry at python.org Wed Mar 16 16:05:38 2011 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:05:38 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <20110316110538.6cbda18d@neurotica> On Mar 16, 2011, at 06:14 AM, Steve Holden wrote: >Time it did, then. Anything the Foundation can do to help? How about posting a list of people for which you have verified contributor forms on record? I'm in the same boat as Fred. I'm nearly certain I signed a contributor form way back when, but I also heard some got lost. If I need to sign another one, I'm happy (and legally able) to. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steve at holdenweb.com Wed Mar 16 16:44:29 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:44:29 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <20110316110538.6cbda18d@neurotica> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> <20110316110538.6cbda18d@neurotica> Message-ID: <25DDECA2-1543-4205-AA1C-B81714CF007D@holdenweb.com> Pat: It appears that our contributor agreement records are not complete. Do you have a list of people for whom we hold a signed agreement, please? regards Steve On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 16, 2011, at 06:14 AM, Steve Holden wrote: > >> Time it did, then. Anything the Foundation can do to help? > > How about posting a list of people for which you have verified contributor > forms on record? I'm in the same boat as Fred. I'm nearly certain I signed a > contributor form way back when, but I also heard some got lost. If I need to > sign another one, I'm happy (and legally able) to. > > -Barry > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From stutzbach at google.com Wed Mar 16 18:32:24 2011 From: stutzbach at google.com (Daniel Stutzbach) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:32:24 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > I added a boolean flag to the bug tracker indicating what user accounts > belong to committers. Please check that the flag is set in Your Details, > Is Committer. If it's not, please let me know. > For me, the area next to "Is Committer" is blank and "Contributor Form Received" is no. I handed in a Contributor Form during the sprints as PyCon 2007. Although I think now the copyright on my contributions are owned by Google and covered by Google's agreement with the PSF. However, I am not a lawyer. ;-) -- Daniel Stutzbach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at holdenweb.com Wed Mar 16 20:40:53 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:40:53 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Recording committer status in the bug tracker In-Reply-To: References: <4D802CEB.5060204@v.loewis.de> <4D803880.4000701@v.loewis.de> <097F6B2B-EBC3-4B18-9E1F-F0A980E43D47@holdenweb.com> <20110316110538.6cbda18d@neurotica> <25DDECA2-1543-4205-AA1C-B81714CF007D@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <20D26E02-5272-4915-B6B3-296E783150F6@holdenweb.com> Yes, I can. Thanks, Pat regards Steve On Mar 16, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Pat Campbell wrote: > Hi Steve: > > Are you able to read the attached spreadsheet? > Thanks, > Pat > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Steve Holden wrote: > Pat: > > It appears that our contributor agreement records are not complete. Do you have a list of people for whom we hold a signed agreement, please? > > regards > Steve > > On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2011, at 06:14 AM, Steve Holden wrote: > > > >> Time it did, then. Anything the Foundation can do to help? > > > > How about posting a list of people for which you have verified contributor > > forms on record? I'm in the same boat as Fred. I'm nearly certain I signed a > > contributor form way back when, but I also heard some got lost. If I need to > > sign another one, I'm happy (and legally able) to. > > > > -Barry > > _______________________________________________ > > python-committers mailing list > > python-committers at python.org > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > > > > > -- > Pat Campbell > PSF Administrator/Secretary > patcam at python.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From g.brandl at gmx.net Wed Mar 23 21:41:56 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:41:56 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted Message-ID: Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. Also, sorry for the span on -checkins, I should not have enabled the notification hook before pushing all changes :) Georg From victor.stinner at haypocalc.com Thu Mar 24 02:31:47 2011 From: victor.stinner at haypocalc.com (Victor Stinner) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:31:47 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement Message-ID: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/ and http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ It looks like the first one is old, because http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ points to the second one. Victor From nad at acm.org Thu Mar 24 02:35:13 2011 From: nad at acm.org (Ned Deily) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:35:13 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted References: Message-ID: In article , Georg Brandl wrote: > Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. Looks like the Version and Last-Modified keywords formerly supplied by svn are now AWOL on the generated web pages. -- Ned Deily, nad at acm.org From tjreedy at udel.edu Thu Mar 24 03:41:57 2011 From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:41:57 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement In-Reply-To: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> References: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> Message-ID: <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> On 3/23/2011 9:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/ > and > http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ > > It looks like the first one is old, because > http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ points to the second one. I believe you are right. The only difference is the addition of the line 'The currently acceptible licenses..." and a vaguely remember some discussion just before I signed it (the 2nd version with the addition). From steve at holdenweb.com Thu Mar 24 05:55:28 2011 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:55:28 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement In-Reply-To: <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> References: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> Message-ID: <358ED9D3-E1DD-4962-A8CB-3E73DD27F4F7@holdenweb.com> We should ask the pydotorg list to fix this. Should we at the same time requet the assition of a field for the committer's user name? regards Steve On Mar 23, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > > > On 3/23/2011 9:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: >> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/ >> and >> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ >> >> It looks like the first one is old, because >> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ points to the second one. > > I believe you are right. The only difference is the addition of the line 'The currently acceptible licenses..." and a vaguely remember some discussion just before I signed it (the 2nd version with the addition). > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From g.brandl at gmx.net Thu Mar 24 09:12:05 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:12:05 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24.03.2011 02:35, Ned Deily wrote: > In article , > Georg Brandl wrote: > >> Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. > > Looks like the Version and Last-Modified keywords formerly supplied by > svn are now AWOL on the generated web pages. Thanks, I've fixed that now (by locally enabling the keyword extension). Georg From mal at egenix.com Thu Mar 24 09:40:44 2011 From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:40:44 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement In-Reply-To: <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> References: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> Message-ID: <4D8B038C.10408@egenix.com> Terry Reedy wrote: > > > On 3/23/2011 9:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: >> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/ >> and >> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ >> >> It looks like the first one is old, because >> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ points to the second one. > > I believe you are right. The only difference is the addition of the line > 'The currently acceptible licenses..." and a vaguely remember some > discussion just before I signed it (the 2nd version with the addition). The first one is old and was mainly used when we started to ask for CLAs. It optionally also covers past contributions. The second one is the one we currently use. It does not have the clause to cover past contributions, since we now expect contributors to sign the CLA before the contributions go into the repository. Could someone please arrange for the first URL to redirect to the second one ? Thanks, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Mar 24 2011) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ From rdmurray at bitdance.com Thu Mar 24 13:18:50 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:18:50 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement In-Reply-To: <4D8B038C.10408@egenix.com> References: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> <4D8B038C.10408@egenix.com> Message-ID: <20110324121850.D815FF4A1B@kimball.webabinitio.net> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:40:44 +0100, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > The second one is the one we currently use. It does not > have the clause to cover past contributions, since we now > expect contributors to sign the CLA before the contributions > go into the repository. Note that this rarely happens in practice. At least, it rarely happens that the PSF has the form in hand and acknowledged prior to the first significant checkin. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com From mal at egenix.com Thu Mar 24 14:29:26 2011 From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:29:26 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement In-Reply-To: <20110324121850.D815FF4A1B@kimball.webabinitio.net> References: <1300930307.1028.31.camel@marge> <4D8AAF75.1080609@udel.edu> <4D8B038C.10408@egenix.com> <20110324121850.D815FF4A1B@kimball.webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <4D8B4736.4060006@egenix.com> R. David Murray wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:40:44 +0100, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: >> The second one is the one we currently use. It does not >> have the clause to cover past contributions, since we now >> expect contributors to sign the CLA before the contributions >> go into the repository. > > Note that this rarely happens in practice. At least, it rarely happens > that the PSF has the form in hand and acknowledged prior to the first > significant checkin. True and there's work underway to fix this. I should have phrased the reply more carefully: while in the ideal case, we should have the CLA before adding significant contributions to the repo, it is fine if we only get it in time for a release containing the contribution. Also, given that we have for many years worked without any CLA, let's not overrate all this. If a contributor uploads a patch to the tracker, he or she will know that the patch could end up in the repo and subsequent release - regardless of whether they sign a CLA or not. Legally this is a gray area, though, which is why the PSF introduced the CLA some years ago. Note that the PSF may also get into trouble if such code was submitted by someone who doesn't own the copyright to the patch. This has happened a couple of times in the past (fortunately, before cutting the release), so for larger contributions, it's better to double check with the patch provider and get the CLA before adding the code to the repo. The problem is then no longer a PSF problem, but one of the patch provider. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Mar 24 2011) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ From jcea at jcea.es Thu Mar 24 19:14:47 2011 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:14:47 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D8B8A17.6000605@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24/03/11 09:12, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 24.03.2011 02:35, Ned Deily wrote: >> In article , >> Georg Brandl wrote: >> >>> Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. >> >> Looks like the Version and Last-Modified keywords formerly supplied by >> svn are now AWOL on the generated web pages. > > Thanks, I've fixed that now (by locally enabling the keyword > extension). These requirements (activate the keyword extension, and set it to "**.txt" files) should be documented somewhere... :). BTW, can I actually push to "hg.python.org/peps", as indicated?. I would expect something like "ssh://hg at hg.python.org/peps". - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTYuKF5lgi5GaxT1NAQKKtwP8DXMD02ocwHiHIJbnd2lr3bp8vbxx7HiF yTrBKH6LdqyNUHgorcvXtL5lzcrwqcg/ppOVtODHolM48GMM3hX0A44SAqjMMYoO YByRWmt5v/lOBaKfgW/mM2TEbDm7PeGkCh/zzBFVelA9fk2VNYZ1u8epb0lxFmwr g2K2MPqqRfY= =V7w3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From g.brandl at gmx.net Thu Mar 24 22:29:08 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:29:08 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: <4D8B8A17.6000605@jcea.es> References: <4D8B8A17.6000605@jcea.es> Message-ID: On 24.03.2011 19:14, Jesus Cea wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 24/03/11 09:12, Georg Brandl wrote: >> On 24.03.2011 02:35, Ned Deily wrote: >>> In article , >>> Georg Brandl wrote: >>> >>>> Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. >>> >>> Looks like the Version and Last-Modified keywords formerly supplied by >>> svn are now AWOL on the generated web pages. >> >> Thanks, I've fixed that now (by locally enabling the keyword >> extension). > > These requirements (activate the keyword extension, and set it to > "**.txt" files) should be documented somewhere... :). Well, I don't think it's required for anyone other than python.org. Those who edit the PEPs just need to keep the $Revision$ and $Date$ intact. > BTW, can I actually push to "hg.python.org/peps", as indicated?. I would > expect something like "ssh://hg at hg.python.org/peps". Yes, of course. Georg From jcea at jcea.es Fri Mar 25 04:47:45 2011 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:47:45 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B8A17.6000605@jcea.es> Message-ID: <4D8C1061.1020102@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24/03/11 22:29, Georg Brandl wrote: >> These requirements (activate the keyword extension, and set it to >> "**.txt" files) should be documented somewhere... :). > > Well, I don't think it's required for anyone other than python.org. > Those who edit the PEPs just need to keep the $Revision$ and $Date$ > intact. So, must I disable the extension KW again?. I am confused. Maybe editors simply must keep "$Revision$" and "$Date$", since those keywords are expanded in the server, for showing in docs.python.org?. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTYwQYZlgi5GaxT1NAQI5pgP/btNjHZnGu1lFgoWLPOnQfK1fM9glufyZ YenlTJDlSXrieheam8SOUXMmNX/dgvjVxqfDvXmRFosoPIPZlEFDMTwPxyq99mVu MihH8UYFVy87+9xngL7IiWctKMwAQRHZcuOZayqKBWqA9lSDOSD2s9e27L1Xyypm xNpkX9lRIoo= =VaPC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jcea at jcea.es Fri Mar 25 06:21:05 2011 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:21:05 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: <4D8C1061.1020102@jcea.es> References: <4D8B8A17.6000605@jcea.es> <4D8C1061.1020102@jcea.es> Message-ID: <4D8C2641.9010300@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 PEP 0001 still lists SVN as the way to checkout/commit PEPs. I guess that place would be the right place to document the details about keywords & mercurial. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBTYwmQZlgi5GaxT1NAQJwRwP/Wnc4iYzYn+eD4fQ1gzipbrZO5DTs54Aa iTugXjWCLN/jQ9EmJatRyMxcwT999dyY7r25vsFF17YvqH4CLbmHNbe2SxKmfQlO KZ9wm9pR1TAXBnNskT+MhvdJJ0rwSjPC25z6nPWhZky6zDl8AzB/JyqquBiVIX1S SK4dKh+EPIY= =bKsT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From martin at v.loewis.de Fri Mar 25 06:58:02 2011 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:58:02 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: <4D8C1061.1020102@jcea.es> References: <4D8B8A17.6000605@jcea.es> <4D8C1061.1020102@jcea.es> Message-ID: <4D8C2EEA.9070804@v.loewis.de> Am 25.03.2011 04:47, schrieb Jesus Cea: > On 24/03/11 22:29, Georg Brandl wrote: >>> These requirements (activate the keyword extension, and set it to >>> "**.txt" files) should be documented somewhere... :). > >> Well, I don't think it's required for anyone other than python.org. >> Those who edit the PEPs just need to keep the $Revision$ and $Date$ >> intact. > > So, must I disable the extension KW again?. I am confused. No. You may enable the extension, or you may disable it, just as you like. It makes no difference. > Maybe editors simply must keep "$Revision$" and "$Date$", since those > keywords are expanded in the server, for showing in docs.python.org?. Editors may add the keywords, or they may remove them, just as they like. It does make a difference and is the choice of the editor. In any case, the PEPs don't show up in docs.python.org (AFAIK), but in http://www.python.org/dev/peps/. Regards, Martin From ncoghlan at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 05:01:02 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:01:02 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. > > Also, sorry for the span on -checkins, I should not have enabled > the notification hook before pushing all changes :) With the quick and easy svn:external reference to docutils gone, could we get the README updated with where to find docutils? Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia From g.brandl at gmx.net Sat Mar 26 18:12:10 2011 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:12:10 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26.03.2011 05:01, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: >> Please commit any PEP changes to hg.python.org/peps. >> >> Also, sorry for the span on -checkins, I should not have enabled >> the notification hook before pushing all changes :) > > With the quick and easy svn:external reference to docutils gone, could > we get the README updated with where to find docutils? I'd have thought that docutils is pretty much universally available nowadays. But you're right that README is out of date, I've updated it now. Georg From ncoghlan at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 05:35:21 2011 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:35:21 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] PEPs repo converted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > I'd have thought that docutils is pretty much universally available > nowadays. ?But you're right that README is out of date, I've updated > it now. Yeah, it turned out to just be a "sudo apt-get python-docutils" away. I'm just unused to having to even think about it :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan?? |?? ncoghlan at gmail.com?? |?? Brisbane, Australia