Hi rob

you are in the list of ok commiters

now when I run the script I did not add the pharoers to the list of
authors.
I should do that.

Now are you telling to me that you did the following steps and run it
without getting a debugger?

On which system are you?

On May 15, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Rob Rothwell wrote:

> I tried to see if my signature is filed; I was quite excited to send
> postage all the way to France, but do not see my name in the
> signature list, or anywhere for that matter...but (unfortunately),
> "RobRothwell" shows up, for example, in Class
> DisplayScreen>>fullScreenOn...
>
> Rob
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr
> > wrote:
> Hi all (and matthew we need your guidance/help)
>
> We really want to get pharo 1.0 license clean. It would be bad that
> 1.0 is not.
> But 1.0 should get out before summer.
>
> Here is a collection of all the information I collected on the topic:
>
> Here what matthew wrote
>
> � � � �I've done the first step and done a full audit, using Yoshiki's
> � � � �tools [1], of all the code
> � � � �in Squeak 3.10.2, with the exception of four packages:
> � � � �- Monticello
> � � � �- SUnit, TestRunner, and SUnitImproved
> � � � �- Universes
> � � � �- Traits
>
> I also applied all of yoshiki's etoys changes to 3.10.2. The
> algorithm that Yoshiki seemed to follow when cleaning etoys is:
> � � � �- If the method can be easily deleted, delete it
> � � � �- Otherwise, use the historical image [1] to revert to the
> � � � � latest version before the problematic author
> � � � �- Fix any bugs this causes
>
> I think we can use the same procedure. Perhaps Yoshiki will
> comment.
>
> � � � �So, to help with the relicense, grab the historical image[1],
> � � � �check out the license audit [2], leave a note on mantis about
> � � � �what you think you'll work on, and start rolling out change
> � � � �sets. For your convenience, all of the license audits are
> � � � �included both in the relicensing tools download and on mantis.
> � � � �I'll try to keep both up to date as we progress with the
> � � � �relicense
>
> � � � �[1] The tools I've been using to do the relicense:
> � � � � � http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0alpha/squeak4.0-
> relicensingTools.zip
> � � � � � see also:
> � � � � � http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-September/131586.html
> � � � � � http://www.squeaksource.com/MethodAuthorship.html
>
> � � � �[2] The 4.0 relicense mantis issue:
> � � � � � http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6989
>
>
> The most up-to-date list of ok contributors is at
> � � � �http://www.squeaksource.com/311/MethodAuthorship-kph.17.mcz
> � � � �See the class-side methods in Authorship, category data
>
>
> here is another email from matthew
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:10:12AM +0200, stephane ducasse wrote:
> > I need your guidance for the MIT conversion effort of Pharo
> > Do you have some cycles to help me and telling me how to proceed?
> > I'm on holidays (so working remotely so I may allocate some time on
> > that).
>
> I can help you after school gets out in a week. I need to
> do a quick count of how many lines of code need to be fixed in
> squeak for submission to SFLC. I can do the same for Pharo. I
> don't know how strenuous you want to be in your license
> conversion.
>
> The next 3 steps in the license conversion process are, in no
> particular order:
>
> - get a document from yoshiki documenting how etoys was
> relicensed (and, by extension, cuis). The board will overview
> it with the help of SFLC and determine if it is good enough.
> - The board will publish a statement about what is and is not a
> trivial-enough change to ignore.
> - I will count up the lines of code to be converted, and
> determine how many of them are trivial and non-trivial
>
> You should chat with Randal Schwartz about what you need to
> decide before you can start relicensing, and what you need to
> document in case your relicense needs to be reviewed in the
> future. Yoshiki and Juan did not do this and thus we have no
> evidence yet that Yoshiki's relicense is strong enough.
>
> I documented the priorities for squeak 4.0 in this email:
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134083.html
>
> You should probably figure out your priorities for the relicense
> as well, so you know whose standards you need to meet.
>
> Since that email was written, Randal has indeed heard back from
> SFLC, but I haven't heard what they had to say yet.
>
> --
> Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project