Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Robert Dewar]

<<My patch makes changes only to files listing the Free Software Foundation
as the copyright holder.  The manuals still list ACT as copyright holder:
I don't know if they have been contributed or not.
>>

Basically the copyright notice in the header indicates whether or not the
copyright has been assigned. There are still some files that have ACT
copyrights. This does not necessarily mean we will not assign to the FSF
just that we have not yet. I mentioned this to RMS, and he did not see a
short term problem. In particular, we know that the FSU copyrights will
remain (FSU insists on this), but again RSM did not feel that was a problem.

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Joe Buck wrote:

> > The mainline gnat_rm.texi manual has FSF copyright notices.
> 
> Is there any reason for the branch to have a different manual?  Any code
> changes reflected in the difference?

There was a big code merge of Ada to the mainline only.  However, since so
far manual merges haven't been done simultaneously with code merges (part
of the work-in-progress nature of the integration - eventually hopefully
there will be fine-grained merges where docs go along with code), the
branch manual version may well not reflect the branch code version
accurately either.

Merging the mainline manual to the branch would fix all but one of the 
bogus ACT references mentioned in ada/6399, leaving just

	Ada Core 
	Technologies does not currently supply a suitable binding generator tool.

(and a "GNAT is maintained by Ada Core Technologies Inc" comment, and the
listing of ACT as author, which are separate issues).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Robert Dewar]

<<The manuals also list ACT as their author; just as companies aren't FSF
maintainers, I understand they aren't authors of FSF manuals either
(people are).
>>

Maybe, but in this case, we don't keep any kind of author information
internally, since we regard all GNAT work at ACT to be a team effort.
So there is no practical way to give a list of the (30 or 40) people
at ACT who have contributed.

I suppose if anyone is concerned (I can't get worked up over this issue or
regard it as that important), you could say something like "employees of
Ada Core Tecnologies" [that's people :-)]

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joe Buck]

> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > My patch makes changes only to files listing the Free Software Foundation
> > as the copyright holder.  The manuals still list ACT as copyright holder:
> > I don't know if they have been contributed or not.
> 
> The mainline gnat_rm.texi manual has FSF copyright notices.

Is there any reason for the branch to have a different manual?  Any code
changes reflected in the difference?

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Joe Buck wrote:

> My patch makes changes only to files listing the Free Software Foundation
> as the copyright holder.  The manuals still list ACT as copyright holder:
> I don't know if they have been contributed or not.

The mainline gnat_rm.texi manual has FSF copyright notices.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joe Buck]

> On Thu, 2 May 2002, Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > I asked a while back if there were any remaining "political" Ada issues
> > (other than the battles over requirements for bootstrapping).  There
> > is still PR 5904, marked as "high": many files say
> > 
> >  * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. *
> >  * It is now maintained by Ada Core Technologies Inc (http://www.gnat.com). *
> 
> A slightly related issue: the bogus "contact ACT" and "ACT does not
> currently supply" references are still present in the Ada front end
> manual; all of them in the 3.1 branch manual, and one in the mainline
> manual (PR ada/6399).

My patch makes changes only to files listing the Free Software Foundation
as the copyright holder.  The manuals still list ACT as copyright holder:
I don't know if they have been contributed or not.

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Joe Buck wrote:

> I asked a while back if there were any remaining "political" Ada issues
> (other than the battles over requirements for bootstrapping).  There
> is still PR 5904, marked as "high": many files say
> 
>  * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. *
>  * It is now maintained by Ada Core Technologies Inc (http://www.gnat.com). *

A slightly related issue: the bogus "contact ACT" and "ACT does not
currently supply" references are still present in the Ada front end
manual; all of them in the 3.1 branch manual, and one in the mainline
manual (PR ada/6399).

"Ada Core Technologies does not currently supply a suitable binding
generator tool." and "For information on GLADE, contact Ada Core
Technologies." are some of the dubious sentences.

The manuals also list ACT as their author; just as companies aren't FSF
maintainers, I understand they aren't authors of FSF manuals either
(people are).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joe Buck]

> > Mark, what do you think?  What's the impact of doing this?
> 
> None, in terms of my confidence level with the release.  Do it!

OK, you'll find the patch at

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-05/msg00288.html

as an attachment.  I need a volunteer with CVS write access to
actually apply the patch.

If you uncompress it it's over a meg, but it just does the same
thing several hundred times.

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Mark Mitchell]

--On Thursday, May 02, 2002 06:29:08 PM -0700 Joe Buck 
<Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:

> [ patch to comments in Ada files ]
>
>> >  * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York
>> >  University. * * Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core
>> >  Technologies Inc.      *
>>
>> seems ok to me, the issue is doing the giant patch for this.
>
> Mark, what do you think?  What's the impact of doing this?

None, in terms of my confidence level with the release.  Do it!

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joe Buck]

[ patch to comments in Ada files ]

> >  * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. *
> >  * Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      *
> 
> seems ok to me, the issue is doing the giant patch for this.

Mark, what do you think?  What's the impact of doing this?

Joe

Re: PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Robert Dewar]

>  * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. *
>  * Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      *

seems ok to me, the issue is doing the giant patch for this.

PR 5904: maintainership of GNU Ada

[Joe Buck]

Hi,

I asked a while back if there were any remaining "political" Ada issues
(other than the battles over requirements for bootstrapping).  There
is still PR 5904, marked as "high": many files say

 * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. *
 * It is now maintained by Ada Core Technologies Inc (http://www.gnat.com). *

This statement isn't correct; as far as the FSF is concerned, Robert Dewar
is the Ada maintainer, not ACT, and we don't generally give plugs to
companies' web sites.  Still, ACT should be acknowledged for their
extensive work.

What if we change the above to

 * GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. *
 * Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      *

or similar, to close this bug?