[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: KFV back end / Code Review Programs
From: |
Karl Goetz |
Subject: |
Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: KFV back end / Code Review Programs |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:11:37 +0930 |
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 07:07 +0200, Sam Geeraerts wrote:
> Danny Clark wrote:
> > Bake Timmons wrote:
> >> Danny Clark <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >>> (Q1) Is a version control program not used just because no one has had
> >>> time to implement it, or are there arguments against it?
> >> Lack of time has been my impression of the problem. The wiki tables
> >> have been a quick and easy solution, but just a first step. I agree
> >> with your comments and am eager to help adapt KFV Mode to a better
> >> back end. I would be surprised if git were not the most efficient
> >> back end.
> >
> > Git is efficient, but also a real pain in the ass to work with
> > (extremely nonobvious behavior - and this is coming to me from top
> > percentile programmers (former OLPC colleagues), not newbies), and it is
> > not (yet) well integrated with a bunch of other tools.
> >
> > As I recall this is partly because Linus wanted git to be more of a core
> > library that others wrote front ends to, but I think he has since
> > changed course, and is trying to make git easier to use. I'm not sure
> > what the current state of that is, as I haven't touched git in >6 months.
> >
>
> If we're going to use version control, it might be worth looking at
> Bazaar. If we're going to use similar tools as Ubuntu, we might as well
> use the same ones. It makes cooperation between the two distros easier
> (and Mark and Jono have expressed even more interest in that since the
> downfall of Gobuntu) and make it easier for Ubuntu contributors to work
> on gNewSense.
This is a good point.
>
> >> Moreover, I hope that this new back end could be adapted for *all*
> >> freedom verification work, including what gNewSense started to do for
> >> packages (PFV). One difference between KFV and PFV is that PFV
> >> typically involved looking not at a file of source code but at a file
> >> of license text that covered a whole package.
> >
> > Or even a step beyond that, to freedom verification work even for
> > non-gNS projects, and then have the gNS-specific stuff be separated out
> > (there really shouldn't be that much packaging code that's separate from
> > the pristine sources).
> >
> > This seems like it's abstractable to "we need to maintain a database of
> > information about a set of files that changes over time, and have nice
> > front ends to maintaining that information". I have to think that there
> > are - or really should be - nice Free Software products / sites covering
> > that problem space. Fossology - http://fossology.org/ - was recently
> > pointed out to me, but I haven't had a chance to look at it in depth yet.
> >
> > I have a few related memos circulating around the FSF offices about
> > this, so soon I should have rms etc. opinions.
> >
> > Also re: PFV, I just had a talk with Deb (IRC freedeb), maintainer of
> > directory.fsf.org, and it turns out that there are plenty of cases where
> > you need to look at every file with packages as well, or at least use
> > some simple (grep/keyword) heuristics to scan through the files. She has
> > some nice (but internally-focussed) write-ups on how she does that that
> > may make it to the resources section of the FSF website in the fullness
> > of time.
> >
>
> I don't really know how FOSSology works or what it does exactly, but it
> sounds like something that we can use. Too bad their live demo is not up.
Seems that it didnt get recorded at LCA which is a pity.
kk
--
Karl Goetz <address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part