* please update the gcj main page @ 2005-07-14 17:02 John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 7:18 ` Ranjit Mathew 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-14 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements. When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is, "does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even if GCJ doesn't support those newer features. *Especially* if GCJ doesn't support those newer features. Thanks, :) ---John ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-14 17:02 please update the gcj main page John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 7:18 ` Ranjit Mathew 2005-07-15 15:21 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 15:29 ` Bryce McKinlay 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ranjit Mathew @ 2005-07-15 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John M. Gabriele; +Cc: java, gcc John M. Gabriele wrote: > Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention > how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements. > > When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is, > "does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info > should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even if GCJ doesn't > support those newer features. *Especially* if GCJ doesn't > support those newer features. GCJ doesn't yet support any of the new 1.5 features. Tom Tromey is developing "gcjx", a complete rewrite of the GCJ compiler front-end, that would support the 1.5 features in addition to being easier to maintain, etc. You can check it out for yourself using the "gcjx-branch" branch of the GCC CVS repository: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?" in the FAQ: http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8 in addition to the front-page (if so desired). Ranjit. -- Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 7:18 ` Ranjit Mathew @ 2005-07-15 15:21 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 15:43 ` Bryce McKinlay 2005-07-15 15:29 ` Bryce McKinlay 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ranjit Mathew; +Cc: java, gcc --- Ranjit Mathew <rmathew@gmail.com> wrote: > John M. Gabriele wrote: > > Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention > > how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements. > > > > When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is, > > "does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info > > should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even if GCJ doesn't > > support those newer features. *Especially* if GCJ doesn't > > support those newer features. > > GCJ doesn't yet support any of the new 1.5 features. Hi Ranjit. Thanks for the reply. I hope I didn't sound confrontational -- I just realized I forgot to put any smilies into my original message. :) > Tom Tromey is developing "gcjx", a complete rewrite > of the GCJ compiler front-end, that would support > the 1.5 features in addition to being easier to maintain, > etc. You can check it out for yourself using the "gcjx-branch" > branch of the GCC CVS repository: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html Nice. Thanks for the link. It would be great to have that information right on the gcj front page. How can we go about adding it? > As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would > be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?" > in the FAQ: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8 Ah. Some expansion of that faq item would be useful (re. 1.4 vs 1.5). Following the link to the JLS page, I see that they are still pointing users to what looks to me like the Java 1.4 spec (I browsed the online html version's index, and there's no mention of generics or autoboxing), though a new version of that JLS book seems to be coming out last month. :) Also note that the "table of contents" at the top of the GCJ faq page has a typo: s/arn't/aren't/. > in addition to the front-page (if so desired). Yes. How do we go about it? :) Thanks, ---John > Ranjit. > > -- > Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com > > Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/ > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 15:21 ` John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 15:43 ` Bryce McKinlay 2005-07-15 16:47 ` John M. Gabriele 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Bryce McKinlay @ 2005-07-15 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John M. Gabriele; +Cc: Ranjit Mathew, java, gcc John M. Gabriele wrote: >Ah. Some expansion of that faq item would be useful (re. 1.4 vs 1.5). >Following the link to the JLS page, I see that they are still pointing users >to what looks to me like the Java 1.4 spec (I browsed the online html version's >index, and there's no mention of generics or autoboxing), though a new >version of that JLS book seems to be coming out last month. :) > >Also note that the "table of contents" at the top of the GCJ faq page has >a typo: s/arn't/aren't/. > > > >>in addition to the front-page (if so desired). >> >Yes. How do we go about it? :) > > The web pages can be found in the "wwwdocs" module in GCC cvs. Go here for details: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html Fixes and updates should be submitted to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org and java-patches@gcc.gnu.org. We appreciate your help with this! Bryce ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 15:43 ` Bryce McKinlay @ 2005-07-15 16:47 ` John M. Gabriele 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryce McKinlay; +Cc: Ranjit Mathew, java, gcc --- Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> wrote: > John M. Gabriele wrote: > > > >Yes. How do we go about it? :) > > > > > > The web pages can be found in the "wwwdocs" module in GCC cvs. Go here > for details: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html > > Fixes and updates should be submitted to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org and > java-patches@gcc.gnu.org. We appreciate your help with this! > > Bryce > Thanks for the links Bryce. :) Will have a look at it this weekend. ---J ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 7:18 ` Ranjit Mathew 2005-07-15 15:21 ` John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 15:29 ` Bryce McKinlay 2005-07-15 16:39 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 20:48 ` Tom Tromey 1 sibling, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Bryce McKinlay @ 2005-07-15 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ranjit Mathew; +Cc: John M. Gabriele, java, gcc Ranjit Mathew wrote: >As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would >be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?" >in the FAQ: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8 > >in addition to the front-page (if so desired). > > The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier to update and maintain. We need to avoid incorporating too many random factiods on the front page, but mentioning that GCJ is currently approximately-compatible with Java 1.4.2 would be worthwhile. Bryce ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 15:29 ` Bryce McKinlay @ 2005-07-15 16:39 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 16:57 ` Andrew Pinski 2005-07-15 20:48 ` Tom Tromey 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew; +Cc: java, gcc --- Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> wrote: > Ranjit Mathew wrote: > > >As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would > >be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?" > >in the FAQ: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8 > > > >in addition to the front-page (if so desired). > > > > > > The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved over > to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier to > update and maintain. The faq looks great. I'm paranoid though -- with wiki's, I always worry some random troll is going to pop in and make tiny incorrect changes just to mess with everyone. IMO, if you needed some special access privileges to make changes (besides just creating a username and password), that would be ideal. Also, the GCJ front page could use a link to the GCJ page of the wiki (right under or in place of the GCJ FAQ link). Further, in the column on the left (GCJ homepage), everything below the "About GCC" should probably be under some sort of GCC heading or graphic or color-scheme (to show that that stuff is not *specifically* GCJ-related, but rather, general GCC-related). I tend to end up hitting the GCC-in-general links on that page when I was looking to click GCJ-specific links. Thanks, ---John ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 16:39 ` John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 16:57 ` Andrew Pinski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Andrew Pinski @ 2005-07-15 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John M. Gabriele; +Cc: gcc, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, java On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:39 PM, John M. Gabriele wrote: > > The faq looks great. I'm paranoid though -- with wiki's, I always worry > some random troll is going to pop in and make tiny incorrect changes > just to mess with everyone. IMO, if you needed some special access > privileges > to make changes (besides just creating a username and password), that > would be ideal. I check the recent edits page almost every day. Oh that reminds me to check it today. -- Pinski a GCC bug master ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 15:29 ` Bryce McKinlay 2005-07-15 16:39 ` John M. Gabriele @ 2005-07-15 20:48 ` Tom Tromey 2005-07-31 22:30 ` Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Tom Tromey @ 2005-07-15 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryce McKinlay; +Cc: Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc >>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> writes: Bryce> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved Bryce> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier Bryce> to update and maintain. Great idea, I agree. We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over the years. Moving to the wiki might help, at least that way folks could more easily fix their own problems. Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-15 20:48 ` Tom Tromey @ 2005-07-31 22:30 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-07-31 23:00 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-07-31 23:12 ` Joseph S. Myers 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2005-07-31 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote: >> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved >> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier >> to update and maintain. > Great idea, I agree. > We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over the > years. Moving to the wiki might help, at least that way folks could > more easily fix their own problems. We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc, or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move documentation around. Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 22:30 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2005-07-31 23:00 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-07-31 23:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-07-31 23:12 ` Joseph S. Myers 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-31 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:30 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved > >> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier > >> to update and maintain. > > Great idea, I agree. > > We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over the > > years. Moving to the wiki might help, at least that way folks could > > more easily fix their own problems. > > We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion > on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc, We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to move documentation from the wiki to the print. They all simply take the wikipedia approach: Make it very clear right near the button necessary to submit changes that you ar enot to be submitting things you didn't write, that all pages are licensed under the GFDL, etc. > or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move > documentation around. Just like everyone else has had trouble? > > Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 23:00 ` Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-31 23:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-07-31 23:17 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2005-07-31 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion >> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc, > We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to > move documentation from the wiki to the print. We are not just any project... >> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move >> documentation around. > Just like everyone else has had trouble? ...being an FSF project mandates stricter standards on copyright issues than "everyone else" needs to follow. Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 23:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2005-07-31 23:17 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-07-31 23:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-31 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:02 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion > >> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc, > > We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to > > move documentation from the wiki to the print. > > We are not just any project... > > >> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move > >> documentation around. > > Just like everyone else has had trouble? > > ...being an FSF project mandates stricter standards on copyright issues For code. I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code. > than "everyone else" needs to follow. Other FSF projects use their Wiki for docs. See GNUStep, GNOME, etc Or are they not "FSF enough" for you? > > Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 23:17 ` Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-31 23:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-08-01 2:50 ` Robert Dewar 2005-08-23 8:48 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2005-07-31 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > For code. > I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much > easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code. I have seen such statements, by RMS himself. Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 23:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2005-08-01 2:50 ` Robert Dewar 2005-08-01 3:08 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-08-23 8:48 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2005-08-01 2:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Daniel Berlin, Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >>For code. >>I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much >>easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code. > > > I have seen such statements, by RMS himself. removing stuff is a remedy for copyright violation, for which a liability still exists. it is preferable to avoid any possible infringement in the first place. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-08-01 2:50 ` Robert Dewar @ 2005-08-01 3:08 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-08-01 3:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Dewar Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 22:50 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > >>For code. > >>I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much > >>easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code. > > > > > > I have seen such statements, by RMS himself. > > removing stuff is a remedy for copyright violation, for which > a liability still exists. it is preferable to avoid any > possible infringement in the first place. > I leave legal stuff to the FSF, and have submitted proposed text (like what Wikipedia does) to people on the SC to forward along in the hopes that will pacify these concerns. You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation, which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code. As for the rest, I view the processes here as a means to an end, not an end unto themselves, and think we should go with the flow contributors want to take when it makes sense and is possible. If it would encourage people to write docs to do docs using a different process (doxygen, wikis, whatever) that has worked well for others, then let's try it in addition to our existing process and see how it turns out. I certainly don't think our current docs process (IE texinfo + patch review + cvs based docs + whatever) has encouraged the kind of contribution we really need to have great docs, for *whatever* reason. I don't blame the people currently maintaining and reviewing docs, though they seem to believe i do. I am simply trying to help find a process that enables better docs. I don't honestly care if that process ends up being people chiseling stone tablets and sending them to me for typing up and editing, along with appropriate legal waiver forms. If that's what developers find gets them to write documentation, ... Forcing people to write more documentation will only work if it's not really extra work for them. If you established a rule that for every 300 lines of code submitted, 150 lines must be added to the .texi files, i believe people would simply stop contributing at all. --Dan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 23:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-08-01 2:50 ` Robert Dewar @ 2005-08-23 8:48 ` Florian Weimer 2005-08-23 16:53 ` John M. Gabriele 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2005-08-23 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Daniel Berlin, Tom Tromey, Bryce McKinlay, Ranjit Mathew, John M. Gabriele, java, gcc * Gerald Pfeifer: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> For code. >> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much >> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code. > > I have seen such statements, by RMS himself. The official position might have changed (e.g. copyright assignments and documentation). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-08-23 8:48 ` Florian Weimer @ 2005-08-23 16:53 ` John M. Gabriele 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: John M. Gabriele @ 2005-08-23 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: java, gcc --- Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * Gerald Pfeifer: > > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> For code. > >> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much > >> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code. > > > > I have seen such statements, by RMS himself. > > The official position might have changed (e.g. copyright assignments > and documentation). > I had one thing I'd like to add to this thread: I spend some amount of time updating various GNU/Linux-related docs on the web. Before wiki's became popular (or, at least, before I knew about them), updating a project's docs meant figuring out how to get the site's source via cvs, learning LinuxDoc/DocBook, and sending patches or getting commit access. I never got involved with that. Now that many projects are using wiki's, I can log in, make corrections/additions, and log out. Not to mention how simple most wiki formatting rules are. It's a piece of cake. The only thing that bugs me is that sometimes the wiki police trample over some nicely crafted bit of work I've done, but that's not too often. Devs on these mailing lists have reapeatedly mentioned how receptive they are to having more newb-friendly docs contributed, but it's just *so* *darn* *easy* to work with a wiki that I'm spoiled rotten, and I'm quickly getting too lazy to start doing it the old way. (It occurs to me to wonder if tldp is beginning to see fewer updates to their docs because folks are preferring to use wiki's.) IMO, it's best to keep wiki's editable only by folks/accounts that've been approved somehow. It shouldn't be too much trouble for a wiki maintainer to enable/disable users as-needed. (Though some folks have mentioned that they monitor the wiki continuously and are emailed notifications every time a change is made, so maybe it's not necessary to only allow approved contributors.) Anyhow, that's my opinion FWIW, coming from someone who writes pretty good newb-friendly docs, on various wiki's, every now and again. IMO, if there's some issue with licensing/copyright and wiki's for GNU projects, it should be straightened out so everyone can easily start contributing to the docs, wiki-style. That seems to be the future of web docs AFAICT. ---John ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 22:30 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-07-31 23:00 ` Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-31 23:12 ` Joseph S. Myers 2005-07-31 23:19 ` Daniel Berlin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2005-07-31 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: gcc On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion > on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc, > or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move > documentation around. The same sort of thing could apply regarding changes to Wiki software - we may need to make sure the authorship information for all past significant changes in the current Wiki remains available even if the past history isn't directly imported into new Wiki software. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail) joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail) jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-07-31 23:12 ` Joseph S. Myers @ 2005-07-31 23:19 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-07-31 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, gcc On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:12 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion > > on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc, > > or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move > > documentation around. > > The same sort of thing could apply regarding changes to Wiki software - we > may need to make sure the authorship information for all past significant > changes in the current Wiki remains available even if the past history > isn't directly imported into new Wiki software. It is already. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page @ 2005-08-01 3:17 Richard Kenner 2005-08-01 3:41 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 2005-08-01 3:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dberlin; +Cc: gcc You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation, which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code. I don't follow. The issue is that somebody claims that the FSF documentation infringes on their copyright and claims that the disclaimers on the Wiki do not constitute a contract or license. It would be very embarassing to the FSF to be found guilty of copyright infringement and it doesn't matter whether it's in code or documentation. Forcing people to write more documentation will only work if it's not really extra work for them. Again, I don't follow. Writing documentation certainly is "extra work". Indeed it's often much more work than writing the code. But it's a very critical part of software development and if people aren't willing to do it, their contribution isn't very valuable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: please update the gcj main page 2005-08-01 3:17 Richard Kenner @ 2005-08-01 3:41 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-08-01 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Kenner; +Cc: gcc On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:20 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with > just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation, > which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code. > > I don't follow. The issue is that somebody claims that the FSF documentation > infringes on their copyright and claims that the disclaimers on the Wiki do > not constitute a contract or license. This is barely worth explaining, but; Such a claim would be ridiculous to press in spite of a clear and conspicuous notice to the contrary, plus affirmative action on the user to agree to such a disclaimer, such as clicking a button. The case law on this is nowadays enormous. If you want to go ask another lawyer whether they'd feel the same way, ask them. I'm sure they'd give you the same answer *for these circumstances*. In general, you don't get to claim they can't do something when they told you they were going to do it, you said "okay", and then they did it. We have verifiable logs that they clicked the submit button, submitting these changes, on such and such a day, at such and such a time. As for the rest of your views on documentation, you could have said the same thing of managing bug reports under GNATS that were fixed or affected by their code. It was extra work, and a critical part of development, yet people often didn't do it. Did that make people's code contributions "not very valuable"? And are you going to disagree that the problem with that process was not, in fact, the tool being used? Make a process use tools that people don't like, and they won't do it. You can say they aren't very valuable then, but that doesn't actually help you get your project where it wants to go. Your views seem very out of touch with what other projects have found to be useful in producing good documentation in terms of tools and processes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-08-23 16:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-07-14 17:02 please update the gcj main page John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 7:18 ` Ranjit Mathew 2005-07-15 15:21 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 15:43 ` Bryce McKinlay 2005-07-15 16:47 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 15:29 ` Bryce McKinlay 2005-07-15 16:39 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-15 16:57 ` Andrew Pinski 2005-07-15 20:48 ` Tom Tromey 2005-07-31 22:30 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-07-31 23:00 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-07-31 23:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-07-31 23:17 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-07-31 23:31 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2005-08-01 2:50 ` Robert Dewar 2005-08-01 3:08 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-08-23 8:48 ` Florian Weimer 2005-08-23 16:53 ` John M. Gabriele 2005-07-31 23:12 ` Joseph S. Myers 2005-07-31 23:19 ` Daniel Berlin 2005-08-01 3:17 Richard Kenner 2005-08-01 3:41 ` Daniel Berlin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).