| ../irclogs/#mantishelp.2010-07-29.log | ||
| --- scribe started --- | 00:00 | |
| davidinc | Hi | 06:47 |
|---|---|---|
| davidinc | Where do we check custom fields is required/ | 06:48 |
| davidinc | before submitting issue? | 06:48 |
| davidinc | I currently developed LDAPAutocomplete plugin is an input custom field to enable users quickly finding and selecting user contact information from LDAP Server('Activate Directory'). | 06:52 |
| davidinc | My problem occur when you create the custom field with required on report page and try but when you submit empty value it allows you to submit. | 06:56 |
| davidinc | HelP! | 06:57 |
| davidinc | :) | 06:57 |
| davidinc | I will cma!!! Tnx | 07:58 |
| dhx_m | howdy | 09:24 |
| dhx_m | brb | 09:24 |
| Andyz | Hi Guys. I've been using Mantis for over a year now, and the company I'm working for love it. My only issues is that we've got with MS SQL as our db. It said MS SQL was supported on your home page, so we've now got a MS SQL dB of a few thousand bugs, but we're suffering from some performance issues (ID_7516). Which seems to be fixed in v1.2. But I can't upgrade to v1.2 because of bug ID_11524. I appreciate Mantis is developed by volunters, and I'm very | 11:18 |
| dhx_m | Andyz: you can try tomkraw1's patch at http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/file_download.php?file_id=2971&type=bug | 11:22 |
| dhx_m | Andyz: AFAIK it's an upstream problem with ADOdb | 11:23 |
| dhx_m | I guess if someone has the time and environment to test with, submitting a patch upstream would be ideal | 11:23 |
| kirillka | dhx_m: howdy | 11:27 |
| dhx_m | kirillka: hi | 11:27 |
| kirillka | dhx_m: I see developers are sleep. mantisbt not changed | 11:28 |
| dhx_m | unfortuantly, yeah | 11:29 |
| kirillka | summer :) | 11:30 |
| kirillka | sea, beach | 11:30 |
| dhx_m | we don't really have any developers who use MantisBT as part of their work (and thus have time allocated to work on it) | 11:31 |
| kirillka | it's right | 11:31 |
| dhx_m | whereas last year we did ;) | 11:31 |
| paulr | Andyz: run an older adodb | 11:32 |
| paulr | from our core | 11:32 |
| kirillka | paulr: hi | 11:32 |
| paulr | dhx wiped out the patches we had so the upgrade worked | 11:32 |
| dhx_m | has anyone tried talking to John (ADOdb developer) to see if those patches can be applied upstream? | 11:33 |
| paulr | no point - i'd rather drop adodb | 11:33 |
| paulr | it'll be less hassle to maintain our own thing then try to beg upstream to support specific conversions | 11:34 |
| paulr | if distributions then want to run their own versions of adodb in a package | 11:34 |
| paulr | for 2 years | 11:34 |
| paulr | etc | 11:34 |
| dhx_m | I'm always happy with the suggestion to switch/drop ADOdb | 11:34 |
| paulr | I know :) | 11:38 |
| paulr | dhx_m: question is whether xmldb is better | 11:40 |
| paulr | or whether roll-your-own is | 11:40 |
| Andyz | I've just tried running the patch by tomkraw1 (suggested by dhx_m) but have ran into bug ID_10742, I was just about to start following those patch instructions. Paulr, how do I run an olrder adodb? | 11:41 |
| dhx_m | paulr: link? | 11:41 |
| paulr | http://cvs.moodle.org/moodle/lib/xmldb/ | 11:42 |
| paulr | Andyz: download 1.2.0 tarball, take adodb dir from there, use with 1.2.1 | 11:45 |
| dhx_m | paulr: what does that code do? | 11:46 |
| dhx_m | it seems like an XML-based abstraction layer around SQL? | 11:47 |
| paulr | http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:XMLDB_Documentation | 11:48 |
| paulr | in fact, http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:XMLDB_introduction is probably a sensible read | 11:48 |
| paulr | seperately to that though | 11:50 |
| dhx_m | the last commits related to xmldb seem to be quite old unfortuantly | 11:50 |
| dhx_m | is it still maintained? | 11:50 |
| paulr | it's there core db layer | 11:50 |
| paulr | the xmldb stuff was supposed to be for schema generation | 11:50 |
| paulr | then they use http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:DML_functions and http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:DDL_functions for other stuff | 11:50 |
| dhx_m | oh they still rely on ADOdb? | 11:51 |
| paulr | where somewhere they say that xmldb has been designed so it's dropable into other projects | 11:51 |
| paulr | I think they've nuked the adodb stuff | 11:51 |
| dhx_m | http://docs.moodle.org/en/Image:MoodleDBStack.png | 11:51 |
| paulr | basically they added their xmldb/dml/ddl layer on top | 11:51 |
| dhx_m | might be old though | 11:51 |
| paulr | and had a mssql_xml 'driver' | 11:51 |
| paulr | erm | 11:51 |
| paulr | mssql_adodb driver | 11:51 |
| paulr | then got to point where I think they've now nuked that | 11:51 |
| paulr | and written their own driver | 11:52 |
| paulr | http://cvs.moodle.org/moodle/lib/dml/ | 11:52 |
| paulr | http://cvs.moodle.org/moodle/lib/dml/?hideattic=0 | 11:53 |
| paulr | yea see the attic'd files | 11:53 |
| dhx_m | ah that's better :) | 11:53 |
| paulr | now if you think of who uses moodle | 11:53 |
| paulr | i.e. education | 11:54 |
| paulr | and look aat how / plugins etc | 11:54 |
| paulr | and the fact that MS sponsored getting mssql working in moodle, and invite moodle to their php-on-windows days in their open source labs etc | 11:54 |
| paulr | I suspect that the mysql/pgsql/mssql support is decent | 11:55 |
| dhx_m | the code looks clean to me | 11:55 |
| paulr | the thing is - not sure their dml/ddl stuff isn't too complicated | 11:55 |
| paulr | it's also called moodle_* as names | 11:55 |
| dhx_m | it's interesting that they haven't split that out into a separate library | 11:56 |
| paulr | I guess they have | 11:57 |
| paulr | it's just named moodle :P | 11:57 |
| paulr | if you look at http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:DML_functions | 11:57 |
| paulr | o $DB->insert_record($table, $dataobject, $returnid=true, $bulk=false) | 11:57 |
| paulr | o $DB->update_record($table, $dataobject, $bulk=false) | 11:58 |
| paulr | but also: | 11:58 |
| paulr | $DB->sql_bitand($int1, $int2) | 11:58 |
| paulr | $DB->sql_ilike() | 11:58 |
| paulr | etc | 11:58 |
| dhx_m | looks good to me | 11:58 |
| paulr | I just can't recall what 'dataobject' is | 11:59 |
| dhx_m | I wonder how it performs | 11:59 |
| paulr | http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:DB_layer_2.0_examples | 11:59 |
| Andyz | Hi paulr, sorry I tried to use the adodb from 1.2.0, and put it into 1.2.1, but I got the same error message (bug ID_10742). I could try the the suggestions in that bug. I'm just a little conerned with patch so many files, that it might cause unforseeen issues. Or am I just being a bit paranoid? | 12:00 |
| dhx_m | http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:DDL_functions | 12:00 |
| dhx_m | also very easy/simple for us to use :) | 12:00 |
| paulr | Andyz: are you using odbc_mssql, mssql, or sqlsrv driver in php? | 12:01 |
| Andyz | ms i believe | 12:02 |
| paulr | from MS ? | 12:02 |
| paulr | $DB->set_field('user_enrolments', 'status', ENROL_USER_ACTIVE, array('enrolid'=>$instance->id, 'userid'=>$user->id)); | 12:02 |
| paulr | if that's how they update db | 12:03 |
| paulr | probably maps quite well to what we do atm ;p | 12:04 |
| dhx_m | yeah it'd be fairly easy to swap I would have thought | 12:04 |
| dhx_m | just run ADOdb + Moodle side by side during the change over | 12:04 |
| Andyz | paulr, I don't know if the driver is from MS, I believe it came in via the PHP installation. | 12:05 |
| paulr | is it called 'sql*' | 12:05 |
| paulr | ? | 12:05 |
| paulr | or ms* | 12:05 |
| paulr | (look in php ini if needbe) | 12:05 |
| paulr | dhx_m: question is | 12:06 |
| paulr | licensing wise | 12:06 |
| paulr | we can use lib right? | 12:06 |
| paulr | as it's gpl and gpl | 12:06 |
| Andyz | paulr, php_mssql.dll | 12:06 |
| dhx_m | paulr: which license? | 12:06 |
| dhx_m | GPL + LGPL? | 12:06 |
| paulr | what's mantis? | 12:06 |
| dhx_m | GPLv2+ | 12:06 |
| dhx_m | sounds fine to me | 12:06 |
| dhx_m | GPL of course only applies if you redistribute code | 12:07 |
| paulr | Moodle is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify | 12:07 |
| paulr | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by | 12:07 |
| paulr | the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or | 12:07 |
| paulr | (at your option) any later version. | 12:07 |
| dhx_m | *code = the software, compiled or not ;) | 12:07 |
| paulr | so if that's gplv3+ | 12:08 |
| paulr | and mantis is 2+ | 12:08 |
| paulr | and if we were to use it | 12:09 |
| dhx_m | now it gets complicated heh | 12:09 |
| paulr | can we s/moodle/mnatis/ | 12:09 |
| dhx_m | do they distribute it thsmselves? | 12:09 |
| paulr | Andyz: I think I use odbc_mssql (and use odbc) | 12:09 |
| paulr | what? :) | 12:09 |
| dhx_m | anything we do to it is a derivative work so it'd have to be GPLv3 too | 12:10 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: gpl3 code can't be used in gpl2 code | 12:10 |
| dhx_m | ideally we'd just let people download the Moodle libs themselves | 12:10 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: howdy | 12:11 |
| kirillka | dhx_m: not good idea | 12:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | hi dhx_m | 12:11 |
| kirillka | nuclear_eclipse: mo | 12:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | getting ready for work atm | 12:11 |
| Andyz | (cheers Paulr, I'll see what odbc_mssql is like) | 12:11 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: got your email, thanks :) | 12:11 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: mostly my fault heh | 12:11 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: if I can help, please let me know | 12:12 |
| paulr | can mantis use gpl3? | 12:12 |
| nuclear_eclipse | well, if I'd known there was a big security fix in there, I would have released it ages ago :P | 12:12 |
| paulr | dhx_m: what you broken now? :P | 12:12 |
| dhx_m | I forgot ;) | 12:12 |
| alexsander | yesterday I saw a bunch of poker-related bugs in the bugtracker... | 12:12 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: we would have to get permission from every mantis contributer since the projcet started | 12:13 |
| paulr | what? | 12:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | or we could do it the incorrect way and just relicense the code, but that's technically a violation of the copyright holders because we don't have people sign their copyright over to mantisbt | 12:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ie, anyone who has submitted or committed code to the project while it has been licensed gpl2 would have to explicitly agree to relicense the code as gpl3 | 12:14 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: we actually have copyright headers that are GPLv2+ so AFAIK it'd be OK to relicense it as GPLv3 | 12:15 |
| nuclear_eclipse | no | 12:15 |
| dhx_m | 4 # MantisBT is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify | 12:15 |
| dhx_m | 5 # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by | 12:15 |
| dhx_m | 6 # the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or | 12:15 |
| dhx_m | 7 # (at your option) any later version. | 12:15 |
| dhx_m | sorry my bad | 12:15 |
| paulr | well | 12:15 |
| dhx_m | we'd have to keep it as GPLv2+ | 12:15 |
| alexsander | nuclear_eclipse, have you seen it yesterday? the poker bugs? | 12:15 |
| paulr | whats the definition of code? | 12:15 |
| paulr | i mean | 12:16 |
| paulr | mantis has been rewritten | 12:16 |
| nuclear_eclipse | wait, dhx_m, your'e right | 12:16 |
| paulr | a few times over | 12:16 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I didn't think about the fact that we're gpl2+... | 12:16 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: afaik we could just fork the GPLv2 codebase and call it GPLv3 | 12:16 |
| nuclear_eclipse | haven't had my caffeine yet :P | 12:16 |
| dhx_m | GPLv3+ :) | 12:16 |
| paulr | yep and leave the original as was? | 12:16 |
| nuclear_eclipse | no, we don't even need to do that | 12:17 |
| paulr | well | 12:17 |
| dhx_m | mixing licenses would get confusing though? | 12:17 |
| paulr | if someone commits code as v2 | 12:17 |
| nuclear_eclipse | the new release serves the same purpose as "redistributing" | 12:17 |
| dhx_m | ie. GPLv2+ files vs GPLv3+ files | 12:17 |
| paulr | we allow people to redist/modify it as v3 | 12:17 |
| paulr | but does that allow us to change the licensse from v2 to v3 | 12:17 |
| nuclear_eclipse | people includes us :P | 12:17 |
| dhx_m | yep anyone can fork it as v3 | 12:18 |
| nuclear_eclipse | copyleft doesn't make any distinction between project members and other random people | 12:18 |
| nuclear_eclipse | anyways, if we relicense, it has to be the entire codebase, and we have to make sure that all of our libraries are compatible with gps3 | 12:18 |
| paulr | is gpl3 compatible with new bsd? | 12:19 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx_m: off topic: bug 11956 and bug 128089 | 12:19 |
| foobot | Bug 11956 - djcarr - open - assigned | 12:19 |
| foobot | Regression in 1.2.1 : no longer obeys Default Value for Workflow Transitions - http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=11956 | 12:19 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: what about plugins? | 12:19 |
| paulr | :) | 12:19 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: that's the real problem | 12:19 |
| paulr | does a plugin have to be gpl2/3? ;p | 12:19 |
| paulr | or is that a seperate module | 12:19 |
| paulr | therefore irrelevant | 12:19 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility | 12:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I personally consider it a separate module, hence the reason I've licensed some of my plugins as MIT | 12:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx_m: both of those issues are assigned to you; is there a quick fix for those? | 12:21 |
| dhx_m | paulr: GPL is copyleft (effectively using copyright against itself) whereas licenses like BSD are neutral (do whatever you want) | 12:21 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: it wouldn't be too hard I guess | 12:22 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: http://www.sugarcrm.com/forums/showthread.php?p=81768 | 12:22 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: does contributors include translators? | 12:23 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: that's where some people disagree on the interpretation of GPL | 12:23 |
| nuclear_eclipse | and yes, translators count as contributers | 12:23 |
| paulr | 7: If I write a module or theme, do I have to license it under the GPL? | 12:25 |
| paulr | Yes. Drupal modules and themes are a derivative work of Drupal. If you distribute them, you must do so under the terms of the GPL version 2 or later. You are not required to distribute them at all, however. | 12:25 |
| paulr | http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7 | 12:25 |
| paulr | so MIT license = more open ? | 12:26 |
| rolfkleef | +1 -- I was just looking up that faq :-) | 12:26 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: yes, MIT is very similar to BSD, only less verbose | 12:26 |
| nuclear_eclipse | MIT also doesn't have the confusion of whether you're using the 3 or 4 clause version of the license | 12:27 |
| paulr | is MIT compatible with BSD? | 12:27 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yes | 12:27 |
| paulr | so MIT = better license for us? | 12:27 |
| paulr | or wait | 12:27 |
| paulr | is MIT compatible with GPL? | 12:28 |
| paulr | answer: no? | 12:28 |
| nuclear_eclipse | depends on contoxt | 12:28 |
| nuclear_eclipse | you can use MIT/BSD code in a GPL project, but you can't use GPL code in a BSD/MIT project | 12:28 |
| paulr | right | 12:28 |
| * paulr sighs | 12:28 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | this is why I've started disliking the GPL | 12:28 |
| paulr | so basically, as jquery is gpl, gpl = easier for us | 12:28 |
| nuclear_eclipse | it causes more problems than it solves | 12:28 |
| paulr | can I email every contributor to mantis *ever* | 12:29 |
| paulr | and ask if they'd like to transfer the contribution licensing rights to me to manage for them? | 12:29 |
| dhx_m | the FSF/Wikipedia had to write a bridging license to exploit the GPLv2+ clause to allow them to dual license Wikipedia content with Creative Commons/etc | 12:30 |
| dhx_m | AFAIK | 12:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: projects like Xorg have a standard waiver that they require contributers to sign that transfers copyright to the project | 12:30 |
| dhx_m | it's not that easy | 12:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | personally, I would love to see Mantis switch to a MIT or BSD license, but I'm pretty sure that will never happen | 12:30 |
| dhx_m | IMO the only way that would happen is if the whole thing was rewritten slowly | 12:31 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I need to head to work though | 12:31 |
| nuclear_eclipse | bbiab | 12:31 |
| paulr | dhx_m: is the gplv2+ clause in gpl 3? | 12:31 |
| dhx_m | it wouldn't be too hard as most of the code is written by a few people here who probably don't mind changing to MIT/BSD anyway | 12:32 |
| paulr | whats the definition of gpl code though | 12:32 |
| paulr | i mean, if someone wrote a line 10 years ago | 12:33 |
| paulr | that we've modified/rewritten | 12:33 |
| paulr | is it still gpl? | 12:33 |
| paulr | erm their code | 12:33 |
| dhx_m | paulr: The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. | 12:33 |
| dhx_m | Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public Lice | 12:33 |
| dhx_m | nse, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. | 12:33 |
| dhx_m | If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program. | 12:33 |
| dhx_m | Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version. | 12:33 |
| dhx_m | clause 14 @ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html | 12:34 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: ok cya | 12:34 |
| dhx_m | paulr: technically yes, it's still GPL | 12:34 |
| rolfkleef | it's a bit of a political question: drupal holds on to GPL to make sure you can't start selling "closed source" modules, other projects use BSD etc to percisely allow this to happen | 12:34 |
| paulr | well you can sell closed source modules | 12:34 |
| paulr | or well | 12:35 |
| paulr | you can sell modules | 12:35 |
| paulr | you just need to give the buyer the source | 12:35 |
| paulr | which can you then stop them giving to a 3rd party? | 12:35 |
| dhx_m | paulr: this is why you have "black box" reverse engineering efforts which aim to remove obligations about old code | 12:35 |
| dhx_m | paulr: ie. duplicate functionality without being influenced (by reading/seeing/working from) earlier code that is under a different license | 12:36 |
| dhx_m | paulr: people can do whatever they want with GPL code/software as long as when they distribute/sell their own copy, they provide the same license terms and provide the source code | 12:37 |
| dhx_m | if you don't distribute it, you're not obligated to hand over your source code modifications | 12:37 |
| rolfkleef | the question is whether you think the community (and product) will be better off in an ecosystem where all contributions are GPL, or where people build a business by using the core product and then adding things they don't share | 12:38 |
| rolfkleef | http://ostatic.com/blog/guest-post-open-core-debate-shows-no-signs-of-slowing-down | 12:39 |
| dhx_m | one common opinion I see is that GPL was thought to be necessary when open source was starting out | 12:39 |
| dhx_m | but now that some people and companies (it's still very limited) realise the benefits of open source, is not so useful anymore | 12:40 |
| paulr | also | 12:40 |
| paulr | companies work around it | 12:40 |
| dhx_m | they're probably mistaken ;) | 12:43 |
| paulr | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dc/Quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.svg/350px-Quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.svg.png | 12:43 |
| paulr | well | 12:44 |
| paulr | you've got closed source kernel modules atm | 12:44 |
| dhx_m | that's to do with the debate about linking code together | 12:44 |
| dhx_m | and whether a separately developed module that is linked to GPL code counts as a derivative work | 12:45 |
| paulr | so when siebrand adds stuff to mantis via translatewiki | 12:47 |
| paulr | how does that work | 12:48 |
| dhx_m | not sure about that one | 12:49 |
| Andyz | hi paul, I was speaking earlier about the issues with mssql, you suggest odbc_mssql. I can't find a php module for that. Do I need one? And when I install Mantis, do I still pick ms sql? (I didn't want to post ealier, as you guys were having a great debate over gplv3/v2! Looked complex stuff. | 12:52 |
| paulr | i'm just wondering if your best waiting a day or two | 12:54 |
| paulr | let me have a look at the issues you've linked | 12:54 |
| Andyz | (sorry, I'm not too familuar with odbc). Perhaps I'll just sponsor the bugs 10742 and 11524 | 12:54 |
| paulr | dhx_m: in that if we contacted some old authors | 12:55 |
| paulr | could we ask them if they care about what license? | 12:55 |
| dhx_m | paulr: perhaps... take a look at OpenStreetmap, they're going through the same thing at the moment (just on a MUCH larger scale) | 12:56 |
| Andyz | Thanks for your time. I aprechiate anything you can do. I'm monitoring the issues, if you make a comment on them. | 12:56 |
| paulr | dhx_m they are ? | 12:57 |
| dhx_m | Andyz: unfortuantly I can't help much without having MSSQL (or the time) to test/debug the issue | 12:57 |
| paulr | It does not cover software and software source code, which are usually but not always GPL (GNU Public License). | 12:58 |
| dhx_m | Andyz: but if you can try commenting on those bugs to organise a patch... I'm more than happy to help push it upstream (or apply it to MantisBT if needed) | 12:58 |
| paulr | dhx_m: what i'd like to do (be able to do ) is following: | 12:58 |
| paulr | a) have translations licensed under something that makes sense | 12:59 |
| paulr | b) have translations source files 'built' into serialized php files which can then be gpl in source or whatever | 12:59 |
| dhx_m | paulr: OpenStreetmap wanted to change licenses so they surveyed participants to see how many responded and how many agreed | 12:59 |
| paulr | c) reduce number of people that care what license mantis is under | 12:59 |
| dhx_m | paulr: the problem is when you can't contact participants, you've got to delete their contributions and start again | 12:59 |
| paulr | d) allow modules to mantis to be licensed seperate to gpl | 12:59 |
| paulr | that's fine | 13:00 |
| paulr | we can probably contact most people ;p | 13:00 |
| dhx_m | I consider all my work in the public domain if that counts for anything :) | 13:00 |
| nuclear_eclipse | here now | 13:02 |
| paulr | dhx_m: if you accept a patch from someone in bugtracker | 13:02 |
| paulr | but you commit the code | 13:02 |
| paulr | is that deemed as your code? | 13:02 |
| nuclear_eclipse | the copyright belongs to the patch submitter | 13:02 |
| paulr | which we may or may not know who they are :P | 13:03 |
| paulr | in that case | 13:03 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that's why projects like Xorg require people to sign away their copyright before they'll accept their patches | 13:03 |
| paulr | as we have two things: | 13:03 |
| paulr | a) git repo | 13:03 |
| paulr | b) commiters list | 13:03 |
| Andyz | thanks for your help guys :) - I'll keep checking the bug tracker, perhaps someone will have the time look at the issues (10742, 11524), and perhaps put the fixes in v.1.3. Cheers guys :D | 13:04 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: I would imagine that "due diligence" of contacting all the authors listed in the current git repo should be good enough for our purposes | 13:04 |
| paulr | esp given as we aren't necessarily changing license | 13:05 |
| paulr | but more | 13:05 |
| paulr | it's an exercise we probably should do | 13:05 |
| paulr | so we can change in future or upgrade in future | 13:05 |
| paulr | and know where we stand | 13:05 |
| nuclear_eclipse | well, like I said before if all we do is switch to GPL3+, we don't need to contact anyone, just straight up relicense the codebase | 13:05 |
| paulr | yes | 13:06 |
| nuclear_eclipse | since we're GPL2+ already, that's a non-issue | 13:06 |
| paulr | but it would be nice to have permission from people to change in future | 13:06 |
| paulr | to something radically different | 13:06 |
| dhx_m | paulr: it gets even more fun when you modify a submitted patch heh | 13:06 |
| nuclear_eclipse | agreed, we should probably take a cue from Xorg and have people sign something "official" assigning their copyright to the MantisBT project | 13:07 |
| dhx_m | paulr: then I'd consider it joint authorship ;) | 13:07 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: source? | 13:07 |
| paulr | url | 13:07 |
| dhx_m | but what is the "MantisBT project"? | 13:07 |
| nuclear_eclipse | sec, I'll look it up | 13:07 |
| dhx_m | if developers split down the middle on a disagreeance and forked... who owns the copyright? | 13:07 |
| nuclear_eclipse | all of the developers still | 13:08 |
| paulr | have people transfer their copyright to mantisbt project | 13:09 |
| nuclear_eclipse | you'd basically have to rewrite the entire codebase to remove Paul and myself from ownership :P | 13:09 |
| nuclear_eclipse | oh wait, dhx_m, you're asking in the case of a hypothetical MantisBT projcet as copyright owner? | 13:09 |
| dhx_m | yes | 13:09 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that's a good question | 13:10 |
| dhx_m | go go public domain :p | 13:10 |
| nuclear_eclipse | hmm, maybe I'm confusing Xorg with another project | 13:10 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ah, GCC | 13:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html | 13:11 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: commit history goes back to 0/ | 13:11 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: commit history goes back to 0? | 13:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | you mean revision zero? | 13:11 |
| paulr | cvs reivsion 0 yes ;p | 13:11 |
| paulr | bearing in mind we went cvs -> svn -> git | 13:12 |
| nuclear_eclipse | assuming that the SVN repo had imported all the way back to CVS 0, then yes | 13:12 |
| paulr | does the svn repo exist? :P | 13:12 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I'm not sure | 13:12 |
| dhx_m | I personally don't see the need for copyright assignment, licenses, etc | 13:12 |
| dhx_m | (for open source projects) | 13:13 |
| paulr | http://git.mantisbt.org/?p=mantisbt.git;a=log;pg=62 | 13:13 |
| dhx_m | if someone was to take the project, fork it, sell it for $1000 and do nothing in return... good luck to them | 13:13 |
| paulr | This commit was generated by cvs2svn to compensate for changes in r4, | 13:13 |
| paulr | which included commits to RCS files with non-trunk default branches. | 13:13 |
| paulr | git-svn-id: http://mantisbt.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/mantisbt/trunk@5 f5dc347c-c33d-0410-90a0-b07cc1902cb9 | 13:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx_m: the point is just that it allows the project to relicense the code in the future, or avoid copyright/lawsuit claims | 13:13 |
| dhx_m | at the end of the day though, people will prefer to use free alternatives that have had a stable and open development history | 13:14 |
| paulr | 273 Author: Jeroen Latour <jlatour@users.sourceforge.net> | 13:14 |
| paulr | 289 Author: David Hicks <hickseydr@optusnet.com.au> | 13:14 |
| paulr | 463 Author: John Reese <jreese@leetcode.net> | 13:14 |
| paulr | 514 Author: Julian Fitzell <jfitzell@users.sourceforge.net> | 13:14 |
| paulr | 558 Author: Glenn Henshaw <thraxisp@logicaloutcome.ca> | 13:14 |
| paulr | that's all people with >200 commits | 13:14 |
| nuclear_eclipse | you're not in that group? | 13:15 |
| paulr | 774 Author: Paul Richards <paul@mantisforge.org> | 13:15 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: ah yep, what I'm getting at is specifically requiring public domain contributions | 13:15 |
| paulr | http://pastebin.com/BWnWpcsM | 13:15 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah, the problem with that is that public domain is not legally protected in the USA | 13:16 |
| paulr | I'm going to assume that | 13:16 |
| paulr | 1 Author: root <root@localhost.localdomain> | 13:16 |
| paulr | can be ignored | 13:16 |
| nuclear_eclipse | lol | 13:16 |
| dhx_m | forgetting Victor in that list? :) | 13:17 |
| dhx_m | and probably Siebrand, Giallu, etc too? | 13:17 |
| paulr | so now let me tidy that list | 13:17 |
| nuclear_eclipse | the real question is whether people will get and respond to email that you send to their sourceforge account... | 13:17 |
| dhx_m | good luck finding Kenzaburo :) | 13:18 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: the real question is | 13:18 |
| dhx_m | I wouldn't send any emails until you contact Victor and then the mailing list with a proposal | 13:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah | 13:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | agreed | 13:20 |
| dhx_m | RE public domain in the US... :( | 13:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | +1 to that | 13:21 |
| dhx_m | http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ | 13:21 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that's why so many open source licenses sprang up in the US, because our legal system doesn't recognize "public domain" as being anything but copyright works 70 years after the author's death | 13:22 |
| paulr | i'm just making a list | 13:23 |
| paulr | :P | 13:23 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: can i ignore translations? | 13:25 |
| nuclear_eclipse | no | 13:25 |
| dhx_m | I guess the "working for free" style approach of open source is unfathomable by many | 13:25 |
| paulr | or more | 13:25 |
| paulr | can we split mantisbt and the languages out | 13:25 |
| paulr | at some point | 13:25 |
| paulr | :) | 13:25 |
| nuclear_eclipse | translations are explicitly covered under our license | 13:25 |
| dhx_m | even though it's not strictly "working for free" at all | 13:25 |
| paulr | explicitly? | 13:25 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: we put a GPL2+ header in all of our translation files | 13:26 |
| dhx_m | do translators see those messages on translatewiki.net? | 13:26 |
| nuclear_eclipse | this is the grey area of GPL stuff -- we have the header there, but can you really copyright translations? | 13:26 |
| paulr | when siebrand arrives | 13:27 |
| paulr | :P | 13:27 |
| dhx_m | afaik you probably can't... usually you can only copyright original works | 13:27 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yes, it would be a good idea to get Siebrand's opinions on that | 13:27 |
| paulr | moo :P | 13:29 |
| Siebrand | dudes, which can-o-worms are you opening here? | 13:29 |
| paulr | lets see | 13:29 |
| nuclear_eclipse | hi Siebrand | 13:29 |
| paulr | I brought up some possibility of using some gpl 3 code | 13:29 |
| paulr | and i'm not at work today | 13:29 |
| paulr | BIG CAN | 13:29 |
| paulr | :) | 13:29 |
| dhx_m | it's a legal grey area but AFAIK databases, maps, etc have been found to be "uncopyrightable" in some cases | 13:30 |
| Siebrand | I very much dislike these discussions about licensing. | 13:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | lol | 13:30 |
| paulr | haha | 13:30 |
| dhx_m | agreed | 13:30 |
| dhx_m | Siebrand: nice work with the new translatewiki look :) | 13:30 |
| paulr | Siebrand: dhx wants to know if translatewiki tells translators that their translation is being licensed under gpl ;P | 13:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | we should just relicense to DWTFYWT and be done with it :P | 13:30 |
| Siebrand | they usually end up finding out that you would like to do/use something your would be able to in the spitit of FOSS, bus have incompatible licenses. | 13:30 |
| Siebrand | spirit, even | 13:31 |
| dhx_m | the point is we're not going to be able to change licenses | 13:31 |
| Siebrand | dhx_m: thanks. | 13:31 |
| paulr | Siebrand: basically | 13:32 |
| Siebrand | at twn we've now formalised that translations are licensed cc-by 3.0 and can/will also be licensed under the terms of the product(s) they're used in. | 13:32 |
| paulr | we've concluded we could move to gpl4 if we wanted | 13:32 |
| paulr | I made point about whether we should ask old commiters that have left if they mind tranferring licenses/copyright to us | 13:32 |
| paulr | *gpl3 | 13:32 |
| Siebrand | is GPL4 there yet? | 13:32 |
| Siebrand | ah, right | 13:32 |
| paulr | such that in future we have like 5 people who have control of what it's licensed under | 13:32 |
| paulr | as technically | 13:32 |
| dhx_m | it's hard enough to rewrite from scratch with concerns about influenced work (having a prior understanding of old code) being counted as possible derivative work | 13:33 |
| paulr | where john licenses some plugins under MIT atm, that may or may not be right ;p | 13:33 |
| Siebrand | http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Project:About#Copyright_and_disclaimers | 13:33 |
| paulr | is CC-BY 3.0 'compatible with gpl? | 13:33 |
| Siebrand | from what I've heard, FSF demands that whenever you're interacting with GPL code, all the stuff you do is GPL, so MIT could be a second license, but it should at least also be GPL. | 13:34 |
| dhx_m | most contributes don't care too much about licensing but some do... you'll find some of the MantisBT contributors in the past don't want companies to use their work without being required to provide source code for their modifications | 13:34 |
| Siebrand | Which is already where I start hating licenses... | 13:34 |
| dhx_m | idd | 13:34 |
| Siebrand | well, in that case we should use Affero. | 13:35 |
| Siebrand | Hosted GPL with modifications does not require sharing. | 13:35 |
| dhx_m | really what we'd need to work out is who doesn't care (like me, I'd prefer public domain) and those who do have requirements on their contributions | 13:35 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Siebrand: I hate GPL when it comes to modules, just because there's no clear division, and no consistent interpretation | 13:35 |
| paulr | Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY) | 13:35 |
| paulr | This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL. | 13:35 |
| paulr | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses | 13:35 |
| Siebrand | paulr: fsck if I know - IANAL... | 13:35 |
| dhx_m | Siebrand: it's worse than that... the lawyers can't even agree :p | 13:36 |
| paulr | Siebrand: well, translate wiki = how translations get into mediawiki? | 13:36 |
| paulr | mediawiki = gpl? | 13:36 |
| paulr | In October 2009 the Wikimedia Foundation have contracted Siebrand to work one day a week on translatewiki.net for one year. | 13:37 |
| paulr | oh congrats ;p | 13:37 |
| nuclear_eclipse | IMO, we should either LGPL Mantis, or move to something like BSD or MIT | 13:37 |
| dhx_m | from what I've heard, copyright claims in court are decided mostly around economic factors | 13:37 |
| dhx_m | how much money or benefit was made from using the copyrighted material? etc | 13:37 |
| Siebrand | paulr: yep, MediaWIki is GPL | 13:37 |
| Siebrand | GPLv2, even | 13:38 |
| Siebrand | Anyway, I've phrased it like this: "Translations by translators are licensed CC-BY 3.0, and derivative works may also be licensed under the licenses of the respective Free and Open Source projects the translations have been or will be added to." | 13:38 |
| paulr | right so translations are under CC-By | 13:38 |
| paulr | then you relicense them | 13:38 |
| paulr | when you dump them into whatever project | 13:39 |
| alexsander | just added an issue: http://www.mantisbt.org/bugs/view.php?id=12216 | 13:39 |
| Siebrand | Great, isn't it? :) | 13:39 |
| paulr | so I can ignore translate wiki | 13:39 |
| paulr | does translate wiki store mantis translations that already exist? | 13:40 |
| Siebrand | now please stop :) | 13:40 |
| alexsander | moto-moi, as you suggested | 13:40 |
| paulr | yes or no? | 13:40 |
| Siebrand | that's where things get crappy :) | 13:40 |
| Siebrand | of course. | 13:40 |
| Siebrand | we imported everything that existed. | 13:40 |
| paulr | brilliant | 13:40 |
| paulr | I can ignore translations! | 13:40 |
| paulr | as i'm going to delete all the current translation files | 13:41 |
| paulr | and generate new ones from translatewiki as an array | 13:41 |
| paulr | thereby, mantis has no translations | 13:41 |
| paulr | thereby no authors | 13:41 |
| Siebrand | heh. Nice one :) | 13:41 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: thanks. it's a hard issue deciding what the minimum version of PHP should be | 13:42 |
| Siebrand | wanna go through the fine print here? | 13:42 |
| paulr | sure | 13:42 |
| Siebrand | the translations were once imported by an import user called 'FuzzyBot'. | 13:42 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: ideally the minimum version is the latest stable release because it'll fix bugs that affect the operation of MantisBT for certain users (maybe it's rare, but it's still a problem for some users) | 13:42 |
| Siebrand | because there was no history, we don't know who made which translation. | 13:43 |
| paulr | not our responsiblity | 13:43 |
| paulr | :) | 13:43 |
| Siebrand | All translators that worked on message in a file are credited in the header of that file. | 13:43 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, but a "minimum" could be a little behind | 13:43 |
| paulr | 'all translators' being legacy ones? | 13:44 |
| Siebrand | so if you drp the files, recreate them from twn, we miss the contributors that haven't contributed in twn, but before that era. | 13:44 |
| dhx_m | paulr: I think Siebrand said that they imported old MantisBT language files into TranslateWiki and hence you may have old GPLv2+ translations? | 13:44 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, the problem is: the user will install Mantis 1.2.1, it will NOT work because of the emails -- that are essential -- and will simply rule out Mantis of further examination | 13:44 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Siebrand: we also have a list of translation contributers in doc/CREDITS | 13:44 |
| Siebrand | paulr: twn users are also credited in the files, but they'll be exported as authors again, because 'we know who they are'. | 13:44 |
| paulr | brb | 13:44 |
| paulr | dhx_m: that's translatewiki's problem to check | 13:44 |
| Siebrand | nuclear_eclipse: are all the translators in there? | 13:44 |
| paulr | ;) | 13:44 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Siebrand: not a clue in the world | 13:45 |
| Siebrand | we could just extract all @author, deduplicate and add them in doc/CREDITS. | 13:45 |
| Siebrand | that would get rid of that issue. | 13:45 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx_m: any chance of fixing those two issues within an hour or so? | 13:45 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: if you're using PHP 5.2.8 or earlier then you have larger problems than MantisBT not working (security issues?) | 13:45 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: sorry, not until the weekend, have to go soon/now | 13:46 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ok, np | 13:46 |
| nuclear_eclipse | gonna push 1.2.2 in a bit | 13:46 |
| dhx_m | nuclear_eclipse: yep, we can follow up with 1.2.3 soon thereafter if needed | 13:46 |
| dhx_m | the regression is annoying but far from serious | 13:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah | 13:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I only mentioned it because it affects one of my installation sites | 13:47 |
| dhx_m | paulr: perhaps | 13:48 |
| dhx_m | hang on | 13:48 |
| dhx_m | maybe you can revert... | 13:48 |
| nuclear_eclipse | well, the regression is due to an improvement :P | 13:49 |
| dhx_m | http://git.mantisbt.org/?p=mantisbt.git;a=commit;h=2f0fd38df55bd0eede605b3178f5efe21233cb2a | 13:49 |
| dhx_m | oops wrong one | 13:49 |
| dhx_m | this one: http://git.mantisbt.org/?p=mantisbt.git;a=commit;h=886dccd9a467c892a165e7a755a6b13d0d8ed365 | 13:49 |
| dhx_m | revert and all will be OK :) | 13:49 |
| dhx_m | revert from both actually | 13:49 |
| dhx_m | master and master-1.2.x | 13:49 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ok | 13:50 |
| dhx_m | I think you could then close the issues in time for 1.2.2 | 13:50 |
| dhx_m | *issue | 13:50 |
| dhx_m | the issue asking for a default workflow to be explicitly listed in config_defaults_inc.php is still valid IMO | 13:50 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that commit you linked, is that from master or master-1.2.x? | 13:51 |
| nuclear_eclipse | nvm, `git describe` to the rescu | 13:52 |
| dhx_m | :) | 13:52 |
| dhx_m | 1.2.x is the one I linked to | 13:52 |
| Github | mantisbt: master-1.2.x John Reese * 19c2a49 (1 files in 1 dirs): Revert "Issue #11729: Preselect next highest status in bug_change_status" ... | 13:55 |
| Github | mantisbt: master-1.2.x John Reese * 49070ba (2 files in 2 dirs): Prepare version and release notes for 1.2.2 | 13:55 |
| Github | mantisbt: master-1.2.x commits 174e0c0...49070ba - http://bit.ly/9ysm5Q | 13:55 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, yes, you have bigger problems, but at least Mantis works... | 13:55 |
| nuclear_eclipse | gotta push those to git.mantisbt.org | 13:55 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: PHP < 5.3.3 is useless for instance | 13:56 |
| nuclear_eclipse | can't access anything but github from work | 13:56 |
| dhx_m | is git.mantisbt.org still official? | 13:56 |
| nuclear_eclipse | atm, yes | 13:56 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: so do we make the minimum version 5.3.3 even when it's OK for users to be using PHP 5.2.14? | 13:57 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, my point is: the newbie user will install Mantis 1.2.1 into whatever PHP it has -- sometimes the user doesn't even KNOW the PHP version -- and if it does not work it will blame Mantis | 13:57 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I'm still working on some integration issues between github and the newest version of my source plugins | 13:57 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, no... 5.2 series is different than 5.3 series | 13:57 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: I understand, but it is also the responsibility of the user (and distro package maintainers) to ensure they're using an up to date version of dependencies like PHP | 13:58 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: from our perspective we can add in version checks (1.3.x branch only with the new admin/check/ infrastructure) for specific PHP versions | 13:58 |
| CIA-26 | Mantisbt: jreese master-1.2.x * r49070ba03852 / (core/constant_inc.php doc/RELEASE): Prepare version and release notes for 1.2.2 | 13:58 |
| dhx_m | and do away with a minimum version completely | 13:58 |
| CIA-26 | Mantisbt: jreese master-1.2.x * r19c2a4922428 /core/html_api.php: Revert "Issue #11729: Preselect next highest status in bug_change_status" | 13:58 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, ok, but if Mantis doc does not mention 5.2.9 many users could simply write Mantis off when doing a bugtracking evaluation | 13:58 |
| nuclear_eclipse | alexsander: but only if they're using local domains for their email addresses... | 13:59 |
| nuclear_eclipse | it seems a bit of a niche usage | 13:59 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: it's not so clear cut for the reason nuclear_eclipse described and my previous comments about 5.3.3, etc | 14:00 |
| dhx_m | the minimum version is very complex based on what features you have enabled in MantisBT, which version of MantisBT, which version of PHP, which features are enabled in PHP, etc | 14:00 |
| dhx_m | our recommendation in the installation guide should effectively mirror that advice | 14:01 |
| dhx_m | "use the latest version possible for these reasons: a) b) c)" | 14:01 |
| dhx_m | if users can't understand that, they need to use a prepackaged version of MantisBT that comes with their distribution (or on Windows... tough luck?) | 14:02 |
| dhx_m | it would then be the responsibility of the distro to determine which version of PHP to require for the installation of MantisBT | 14:02 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, that's why I suggested, in my bug report, to add a warning | 14:03 |
| alexsander | "If you are using local network addresses, the minumum version of 5.2 series is 5.2.9 | 14:04 |
| dhx_m | that is something we could do | 14:04 |
| dhx_m | but we can't have a warning for every problem | 14:04 |
| dhx_m | I agree in this case that the issue you describe is worthy of a check | 14:05 |
| dhx_m | are you able to post a link to the relevant php.net bug ID tracking the regression in PHP? | 14:05 |
| dhx_m | (if known) | 14:05 |
| dhx_m | it'll make it easier for us to understand/explain in the documentation what the warning is for | 14:06 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, it's all in my bug report | 14:07 |
| dhx_m | alexsander: thanks | 14:07 |
| dhx_m | dhx_m: I've assigned it to myself for the next release | 14:08 |
| alexsander | I can point the LINE in phpMailer library that triggers the bug | 14:08 |
| alexsander | grep FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL library/phpmailer/class.phpmailer.php | 14:11 |
| alexsander | dhx_m, grep FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL library/phpmailer/class.phpmailer.php | 14:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ... building release tarballs... | 14:14 |
| dhx_m | :) | 14:17 |
| CIA-26 | Mantisbt: jreese * rbc80ecd92471 /core/html_api.php: Revert "Issue #11729: Preselect next highest status in bug_change_status" | 14:18 |
| nuclear_eclipse | now I just gotta figure out how to upload these to sourceforge, again.... | 14:19 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I wish they hadn't removed the option to SCP tarballs, because I had to build them on my server, and my at-work net connection is seriously horrible | 14:19 |
| dhx_m | yep | 14:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | omg I'm going to kill them | 14:21 |
| nuclear_eclipse | afaict, their new "beta" file manager doesn't even have a way to create new folders/releases.... | 14:22 |
| dhx_m | haha | 14:22 |
| dhx_m | From Edgar Ruiz on MantisBT 1.2.0 Released # [Pending] | 14:25 |
| dhx_m | Please I need talk with somebody in Spanish about control bugs to my store please call me to phone:(512)2947791.Thanks. | 14:25 |
| dhx_m | hmmm this spam queue is funny at times | 14:25 |
| nuclear_eclipse | hmm, looking at sf.net's help guide, it seems they still have the option to SCP files | 14:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | but unless I'm doing something wrong, it's not liking my password... | 14:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ah, I need to update my SSH key with them | 14:34 |
| L0rdsAli3n | are you there nuclear_eclipse? | 14:41 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yes | 14:42 |
| L0rdsAli3n | i switched to a older gitweb version (1.5.6.5) and now the integration works :) But I have another issue, I can't find the repository's ID of my gitweb repo?!? | 14:43 |
| L0rdsAli3n | i googled for a half hour now, but i can't find anything about a repo id in gitweb... | 14:45 |
| nuclear_eclipse | what are you trying to find an ID for? | 14:46 |
| L0rdsAli3n | for my gitweb repo, I read your article on your blog and it says "For Gitweb, SourceForge, or WebSVN integration, find your repository's ID", but i can't find one ... | 14:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | are you trying to set up the post-commit hook? | 14:49 |
| L0rdsAli3n | i want to make sure MantisBT stays up to date with the latest changes from the repository: | 14:50 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah, that ID is the ID for the repository in Mantis | 14:50 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ie, when you click on the repo in mantis, there's an id= in the URL | 14:51 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that bit could probably be more clear.. | 14:51 |
| L0rdsAli3n | yeah, that would be great | 14:52 |
| L0rdsAli3n | so if my url looks like "plugin.php?page=Source/list&id=3" => my repo ID is "3"?? | 14:52 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yes | 14:52 |
| L0rdsAli3n | ok thanks | 14:53 |
| nuclear_eclipse | you're welcome | 14:53 |
| nuclear_eclipse | SCP lives! | 14:59 |
| * nuclear_eclipse cries in happiness | 14:59 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | release announcements will have to wait till after lunch... | 15:01 |
| paulr | and back | 15:13 |
| paulr | dhx_m: you gone yet? | 15:16 |
| paulr | assume he's gone to bed ;/ | 15:39 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: http://git.mantisbt.org/?p=mantisbt.git;a=commit;h=c5a3a6597bb45f0ba56fa2fa86c95d9b3aaa8fef | 16:26 |
| paulr | so commits before 2002 got updated to mantis group | 16:28 |
| paulr | so only need to deal with last 8 years | 16:28 |
| Github | mantisbt: master John Reese * bc80ecd (1 files in 1 dirs): Revert "Issue #11729: Preselect next highest status in bug_change_status" ... - http://bit.ly/a9J17n | 16:30 |
| paulr | that's either lagged or john just got back from lunch ;P | 16:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: I have a script that periodically mirrors the official repo to github | 16:32 |
| nuclear_eclipse | but yes, I'm back from lunch now :P | 16:32 |
| paulr | ahh | 16:32 |
| paulr | so according to that post | 16:32 |
| paulr | would you agree that says that 8 years ago, prior to that copyright of things was transferred to 'mantis group' | 16:32 |
| paulr | so therefore individuals i.e. ken ito who originally wrote mantis | 16:33 |
| paulr | would be happy with a license change? | 16:33 |
| paulr | or more... already gave up their 'right' | 16:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I don't think so | 16:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | this is why I hate copyright licensing :P | 16:33 |
| paulr | copyright on Mantis for the years 2002 and onward is transferred to the 'Mantis Group', consisting of all of Mantis' developers. All files have had their copyright notices changed to reflect this. | 16:34 |
| paulr | copyright applies for 30 years is it ? | 16:34 |
| nuclear_eclipse | well, from that wording it sounds like you would only need to get permissions from kenzaburo | 16:34 |
| paulr | also how's mantis team / mantis group defined? :) | 16:36 |
| paulr | the real problem for this | 16:39 |
| paulr | is that 'mantis team' / 'mantis group' doesn't actually exist as an entity | 16:39 |
| nuclear_eclipse | right, or at least isn't properly defined anywhere | 16:40 |
| paulr | so if someone rights a patch for mantis | 16:41 |
| paulr | what does GPL actually give thme | 16:41 |
| nuclear_eclipse | bluh, gotta rebuild tarballs for 1.2.2 | 16:42 |
| paulr | ;/ | 16:43 |
| nuclear_eclipse | never got to install the docbook toolchain on my new vps, so the tarballs I built earlier lacked the compiled manuals | 16:44 |
| paulr | as it would seem sensible to make sure that people dont care about gpl | 16:44 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: I don't quite understand what you're asking | 16:45 |
| paulr | well, we should be able to go through old contributors, and make sure they dont care what license mantis uses in future right/ | 16:46 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I would imagine so | 16:46 |
| paulr | so what would they actually need to be asked to agree to | 16:46 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I don't know that for sure | 16:47 |
| paulr | also victor nevers come in here anymore ;/ | 16:48 |
| nuclear_eclipse | well, to be fair, you aren't exactly a regular here anymore either... | 16:50 |
| nuclear_eclipse | nor glenn | 16:50 |
| paulr | !! | 16:50 |
| paulr | think it's more i've not run irssi on my server | 16:50 |
| nuclear_eclipse | this discussion today is the most I've seen you in the past three months.... | 16:50 |
| paulr | so just connected mirc when i'm at pc | 16:50 |
| * paulr NODS | 16:50 | |
| paulr | as if it's just a case of | 16:51 |
| paulr | we need to make a list of contributors | 16:51 |
| paulr | ask them if they would be happy for us to license their contribution under a different license in future, and to make future decisions without contacting them | 16:52 |
| paulr | then that's easy to work out who to contact | 16:52 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah | 16:52 |
| paulr | esp. given the amount of churn in code base | 16:53 |
| paulr | GPL isn't really design for web-based projects tbh | 16:53 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I would definitely agree with that statement | 16:54 |
| nuclear_eclipse | the AGPL is actually focused on network based applications, and has extra requirements based around that, but it almost becomes too heavy of a license that way | 16:55 |
| paulr | heh | 16:55 |
| paulr | mantis is gpl 3 already | 16:55 |
| paulr | btw | 16:56 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: are any of the libraries we use in mantis licensed under the GPL? | 16:56 |
| paulr | rssbuilder is gpl3 | 16:56 |
| paulr | therefore | 16:56 |
| paulr | mantis is gpl 3 | 16:56 |
| nuclear_eclipse | hmm, damn | 16:56 |
| paulr | or we are breaking licensing | 16:56 |
| paulr | or something | 16:56 |
| paulr | heh | 16:56 |
| nuclear_eclipse | if rssbuilder is gpl3, that means we've technically violated the GPL3 license for rssbuilder | 16:57 |
| paulr | or does it just up the license of mantis? | 16:57 |
| paulr | *OR* | 16:57 |
| paulr | did we get this dual licensed | 16:58 |
| nuclear_eclipse | no, it doesn't just increase our license | 16:58 |
| paulr | I might fix this :P | 16:58 |
| * paulr has idea of how to fix :P | 16:58 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | please don't make any changes to the codebase | 16:58 |
| paulr | what? | 16:59 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: I think we might have asked if we could have rssbuilder under gpl 2.0 | 16:59 |
| paulr | to the author | 16:59 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ok | 16:59 |
| paulr | <nuclear_eclipse> please don't make any changes to the codebase | 16:59 |
| paulr | huh? | 16:59 |
| paulr | what did you think I was gonna do? | 16:59 |
| paulr | edit the license tag on each rssbuilder file? | 16:59 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I thought maybe you were planning to just update the code to GPL3 and call it fixed :P | 16:59 |
| nuclear_eclipse | we really need to have a discussion on the developer mailing list before we take any action involving license issues | 17:00 |
| nuclear_eclipse | if you can provide proof that we received permission to use rssbuilder under GPL2, we need to have that documented somewhere | 17:01 |
| paulr | whats LGPL compatible with? | 17:01 |
| paulr | or more | 17:02 |
| paulr | mantis has code this is licensed under: | 17:02 |
| nuclear_eclipse | you can use LGPL code in just about anything -- the only obligations are to provide the source for the library/project itself, or any modifications made directly to the library/project | 17:02 |
| paulr | ezc: http://ez.no/licenses/new_bsd New BSD License | 17:02 |
| paulr | adodb: Released under both BSD license and Lesser GPL library license. | 17:02 |
| paulr | disposable: This program is distributed under the terms and conditions of the LGPL | 17:03 |
| paulr | nusoap: GNU Lesser General Public | 17:03 |
| paulr | phpmailer: GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | 17:03 |
| paulr | rssbuilder: gpl3 | 17:04 |
| paulr | utf8: GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | 17:04 |
| paulr | so lets see | 17:04 |
| paulr | so mantis has stuff in it that is: | 17:04 |
| nuclear_eclipse | hi Glenn | 17:04 |
| paulr | gpl2 / gpl3 lgpl and new bsd | 17:04 |
| thraxisp | 'morning | 17:04 |
| paulr | http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ | 17:06 |
| * paulr wants to get hold of victor | 17:08 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: developer discussion list is the best way to reach him... | 17:42 |
| nuclear_eclipse | bluh, every time I make a release announcement I get at least 5 or 6 stupid "out of office" auto replies... | 17:53 |
| siebrand | only one solution: immediate unsubscribe. | 17:54 |
| nuclear_eclipse | this time, I even got an automated support desk ticket number from some company in France... | 17:54 |
| nuclear_eclipse | siebrand: except they always end up as reply-to-all, so even if I unsubbed, I'd still get them... | 17:55 |
| siebrand | them, not you. | 17:55 |
| siebrand | (no idea who manages the mailing list, though, but you could!) | 17:55 |
| siebrand | nuclear_eclipse: but you're not the only one suffering; each time you announce, I get 3 identical mails! | 17:56 |
| siebrand | (with a different mailing list prefix) | 17:56 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah, I know, I do that because not everybody subcribes to announce | 17:57 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I get all three of them myself :P | 17:57 |
| paulr | wb siebrand | 17:59 |
| paulr | how do you generate lang files atm? | 17:59 |
| siebrand | paulr: based on keys in the source language. | 18:00 |
| siebrand | paulr: -/- keys that are ignored. | 18:00 |
| paulr | is it a php script? | 18:00 |
| siebrand | paulr: see http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/Translate/groups/MantisBT/MantisBT.yml?view=markup for definitions. | 18:01 |
| siebrand | paulr: yes, it's all PHP (except for the YAML config ;P) | 18:01 |
| paulr | ok | 18:01 |
| paulr | what defines what strings ? | 18:01 |
| siebrand | paulr: the source file | 18:02 |
| siebrand | paulr: ehr, the file format parser. | 18:03 |
| siebrand | paulr: FlatPhpFFS in the case of MantisBT | 18:03 |
| siebrand | paulr: that's in extensions/Translate/ffs/PhpVariables.php | 18:04 |
| siebrand | paulr: each FFS has a reader and a writer | 18:04 |
| paulr | mm | 18:07 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: we could do language packs | 18:08 |
| paulr | :) | 18:08 |
| L0rdsAli3n | nuclear_eclipse: still here? | 18:35 |
| L0rdsAli3n | or anyone else: I have a problem with the cronjob who should update mantis with the changes from gitweb: ""curl http://yoururl.xyz/mantisbt/plugin.php?page=Source/repo_import_latest&id=XX". But it fails with APPLICATION ERROR #2800 | 18:55 |
| L0rdsAli3n | Invalid form security token. Did you submit the form twice by accident? | 18:55 |
| L0rdsAli3n | Anyone a idea why that happens_ | 18:55 |
| alexsander | is there a way to add a group of emails -- not necessarily users of the bugtracking -- that would receive a message when a certain bug reaches a certain state (like closed)? | 19:36 |
| nuclear_eclipse | alexsander: not currently | 19:37 |
| alexsander | nuclear_eclipse, this could be used to warn managers of minor releases | 19:40 |
| nuclear_eclipse | alexsander: there is a way to specify via $g_notify_flags a minimum access level to always receive mails under certain contexts, but it requires user accounts, and doesn't just allow you to list arbitrary user accounts | 19:41 |
| alexsander | nuclear_eclipse, I know | 19:43 |
| nuclear_eclipse | alexsander: the only other option would be to write a plugin | 19:43 |
| nuclear_eclipse | there are event hooks a plugin can use to add or remove certain accounts from notifications, and would let you accomplish what you're looking for, but it would require writing your own plugin code | 19:44 |
| alexsander | nuclear_eclipse, for while I'll propose to add the managers as reporters... this way they could even use pages like changelog and roadmap to track issues | 19:50 |
| * paulr crosses handers | 22:32 | |
| paulr | -er | 22:32 |
| * paulr pokes nuclear_eclipse and dhx_m | 23:08 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | hi paulr | 23:09 |
| paulr | so people who worked on .php3 files in 2000-2001 | 23:09 |
| paulr | can be ignored? | 23:10 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I don't know, depends on whether their code was used at all in the new codebase | 23:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: there's no simple answer of who we can ignore | 23:11 |
| paulr | I refer to: | 23:11 |
| paulr | <paulr> copyright on Mantis for the years 2002 and onward is transferred to the 'Mantis Group', consisting of all of Mantis' developers. All files have had their copyright notices changed to reflect this. | 23:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: just assume we need to get permission from *everyone* | 23:11 |
| paulr | for that change to have been done | 23:12 |
| paulr | we would have needed permission in 2002 | 23:12 |
| paulr | :) | 23:12 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: the problem is that is a very ambiguous way of stating that | 23:12 |
| paulr | oh btw, I want seperate git repos for manuals :P | 23:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | because that wording makes it sound like copyrights *after* that date are transferred to the group, but we don't have any official policy or waivers from any of those contributers | 23:13 |
| paulr | or can we license within one git repos different things differently | 23:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I'm becoming more adept with git-submodule, so splitting the repo is possible, but I'd prefer to keep everything in one place, and just have multiple licenses in place for different sections | 23:14 |
| paulr | Author: bigbadger <bigbadger@users.sourceforge.net> | 23:18 |
| paulr | Mdoc/ChangeLog | 23:18 |
| paulr | Mdoc/CREDITS | 23:18 |
| paulr | can I ignore people that only change the credits? :) | 23:18 |
| paulr | icons | 23:21 |
| paulr | ! | 23:21 |
| paulr | nn | 23:23 |
Generated by irclog2html.py
