[Monotone-devel] Re: What's the plans for cvs_import?

[graydon hoare]

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:54:19 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> 3 *hours*?????  Wow!  That's a long time.  I'm comparing with cvs2cl
> (the CVS log -> ChangeLog generator), which does 3 minutes by default:

ah. well, I was probably just being silly. I picked a number out of thin air.
it's a one line patch to pick a different number. 3 minutes? 5? 10?

> You could have a special option for cvs_import where the user could
> choose the chekin window.  On the other hand, it looks like you don't
> have command-specific options, am I getting that correctly?

I'm trying to keep such things to a minimum, mostly because I don't want
to get into the "some options come before the command, some after" game
which is a bit frustrating with CVS. but we might wind up with them. I
am not terribly fixated on a particular command line or UI setup. the
only rule I want to follow is:

  "if people find something awkward, that is emprically true whether
   or not it makes sense, so it ought to be changed until they do not
   find it awkward"

> I've a larger contribution that handles non-branch tags.  I did it by
> creating a separate branch to do my own hacking in (uhmm, called it
> net.venge.monotone.levitte, mostly for lack of imagination :-)).  How
> do you want it (DO you want it?)?  A patch or the key to the server I
> haven't set up yet?

patches are fine. keys to servers are fine. if you don't want to set up
a server, I'll happily let you write to mine if you send me a key (unless
you start filling it up with warez; then I'll have to prohibit that key
from writing :)

as far as branch names, whatever you prefer. distributed development on
lightweight branches is still imo a new science, so I'm not sure anyone
knows what the "correct" arrangement is. try something and if it doesn't
work we'll make a change. branches can overlap anyways.

> Also, how do you want to deal with larger contributions, if you accept
> them?  Some people (for example, the FSF) want a signed document where
> I state that my contribution is mine and is not something I've taken
> from somewhere else, and is entirely free.

personally, I think such things are very over-the-top, and I don't really
want software development to wind up requiring such nonsense as a matter
of course. it's bad enough people think they need to stick 60 lines of
legal chatter in the comments of every file to be safe.

I already assume that you are submitting code to my project in good faith,
are aware that it is free software, and thus know that committing non-free
code copied from somewhere else would be a copyright violation. if I had
a letter from you attesting to that fact, I don't think it would change
much; unless I'm supposed to assume you're dealing with me in bad faith
until I get a letter. maybe paper manufacturers and contract lawyers
would like that world, but I think case law is a little more willing to
interpret circumstances.

do you have a link to some sort of discussion of this requirement? it
sounds to me like someone is trying to out-do patent law in the "do
research on your own time to prove your own innocence" department
(nb. people are innocent of a crime until proven guilty)

-graydon