dejagnu group

dejagnu group

[Andrew Cagney]

Hi,

Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to move a
few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.


	Andrew

Re: dejagnu group

[Tom Tromey]

Andrew> Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to
Andrew> move a few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.

Done.
Who makes decisions about write access for dejagnu?
I have a patch I'd like to check in.

Tom

Re: dejagnu group

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 38F4115B.EC6098A@cygnus.com >you write:
  > Hi,
  > 
  > Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to move a
  > few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.
Done.
jeff

Re: dejagnu group

[Andrew Cagney]

Tom Tromey and Jeff Law wrote:
> 
> Andrew> Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to
> Andrew> move a few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.
> 
> Done.

Thanks, Thanks.

	Andrew

Re: dejagnu group

[Andrew Cagney]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> Who makes decisions about write access for dejagnu?
> I have a patch I'd like to check in.

The official dejagnu sources are on http://sourceforge .<something>.  I'd
suggest submit the patch there and also apply the change to the local
mostly maintenance branch.  I assume it is nothing radical.

I think Jim Blandy was also keeping an eye on the local dejagnu.

	Andrew

Re: dejagnu group

[Jason Molenda]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 04:26:56PM +1000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:

> > Who makes decisions about write access for dejagnu?
> > I have a patch I'd like to check in.

> The official dejagnu sources are on http://sourceforge .<something>.  I'd
> suggest submit the patch there and also apply the change to the local
> mostly maintenance branch.  I assume it is nothing radical.

We went over all of this on a Cygnus internal list months ago.

Rob's repository on sourceforge is nothing but our own dejagnu.
He hasn't added a single change in the fourteen months that he has
had a separate repository--he's just imported changes that have
been made at Cygnus.

More importantly, Rob's repository is _still_ an unsanitized tree
that he copied from Cygnus when he left.  A Cygnus person should
get on bmoss/krk to get this resolved -- both bmoss and krk said
they would follow up with it quickly, but nothing has changed on
the sourceforge repo.  The repository, as is, is not acceptable
for public consumption.  If nothing else, contact VA and get this
project pulled.

I would certainly not cooperate with this repository until the
Cygnus-internal, customer confidential, information, tags, and
infrastructure is completely stripped.  He essentially needs to
throw away this repository and start over.  It should not be too
difficult; as I said earlier, he hasn't done anything of substance
on his fork.

After his repository is free of confidential information, I'd still
not bother coordinating with him unless there was someone actually
doing something in that repository.  But that's more of a judgement
call.


Anyway, as for our local repository on sourceware, last I heard,
changes to dejagnu are considered a free-for-all, with possible
review or oversight by Jim Wilson (he volunteered) if someone wanted
to talk with someone about a change.

Jason

Re: dejagnu group

[Jim Kingdon]

> I would certainly not cooperate with this repository until the
> Cygnus-internal, customer confidential, information, tags, and
> infrastructure is completely stripped.

Information from years ago?  Sorry, I just can't see the need to
bother.

Furthermore, there are pitfalls here (what would it sound like if
slashdot reads "Red Hat cracks down on Rob"?).  If our customers care,
we can't just ignore it, yes.  But if it is hypothetical and seems
unlikely, I'd probably argue for just not worrying about it.

Re: dejagnu group

[Kim Knuttila]

Bob and Angela went through a process with Rob 2 months ago
that was supposed to result in cleaning of bits we cared
about. Rob agreed to do it. It sounds like it didn't get
done?

Anyway, Rob has been pretty agreeable about removing stuff
from his tree. I've asked angela and bob to confirm that the
desired actions have taken place and if not, resume the
discussion with Rob. thx for the heads up.

--krk.

At 08:31 AM 4/12/00 -0400, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> > I would certainly not cooperate with this repository until the
> > Cygnus-internal, customer confidential, information, tags, and
> > infrastructure is completely stripped.
>
>Information from years ago?  Sorry, I just can't see the need to
>bother.
>
>Furthermore, there are pitfalls here (what would it sound like if
>slashdot reads "Red Hat cracks down on Rob"?).  If our customers care,
>we can't just ignore it, yes.  But if it is hypothetical and seems
>unlikely, I'd probably argue for just not worrying about it.

Re: dejagnu group

[Tom Tromey]

Andrew> The official dejagnu sources are on
Andrew> http://sourceforge .<something>.  I'd suggest submit the patch
Andrew> there and also apply the change to the local mostly
Andrew> maintenance branch.  I assume it is nothing radical.

I sent the patch to Rob already.
I'm just going to give myself write permission for the sourceware
dejagnu.

T

Re: dejagnu group

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000412002350.A10419@shell17.ba.best.com >you write:
  > More importantly, Rob's repository is _still_ an unsanitized tree
  > that he copied from Cygnus when he left.  A Cygnus person should
  > get on bmoss/krk to get this resolved -- both bmoss and krk said
  > they would follow up with it quickly, but nothing has changed on
  > the sourceforge repo.  The repository, as is, is not acceptable
  > for public consumption.  If nothing else, contact VA and get this
  > project pulled.
What needs to happen is for someone from Cygnus to review the code and
find any unsanitary bits.

Rob has pulled bits that I pointed out were still secret -- that was
before the repo went up on sourceforge -- at least he said he pulled
the secret bits, I haven't actually followed up and checked.

jeff

Re: dejagnu group

[Jason Molenda]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 04:26:56PM +1000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:

> > Who makes decisions about write access for dejagnu?
> > I have a patch I'd like to check in.

> The official dejagnu sources are on http://sourceforge .<something>.  I'd
> suggest submit the patch there and also apply the change to the local
> mostly maintenance branch.  I assume it is nothing radical.

We went over all of this on a Cygnus internal list months ago.

Rob's repository on sourceforge is nothing but our own dejagnu.
He hasn't added a single change in the fourteen months that he has
had a separate repository--he's just imported changes that have
been made at Cygnus.

More importantly, Rob's repository is _still_ an unsanitized tree
that he copied from Cygnus when he left.  A Cygnus person should
get on bmoss/krk to get this resolved -- both bmoss and krk said
they would follow up with it quickly, but nothing has changed on
the sourceforge repo.  The repository, as is, is not acceptable
for public consumption.  If nothing else, contact VA and get this
project pulled.

I would certainly not cooperate with this repository until the
Cygnus-internal, customer confidential, information, tags, and
infrastructure is completely stripped.  He essentially needs to
throw away this repository and start over.  It should not be too
difficult; as I said earlier, he hasn't done anything of substance
on his fork.

After his repository is free of confidential information, I'd still
not bother coordinating with him unless there was someone actually
doing something in that repository.  But that's more of a judgement
call.


Anyway, as for our local repository on sourceware, last I heard,
changes to dejagnu are considered a free-for-all, with possible
review or oversight by Jim Wilson (he volunteered) if someone wanted
to talk with someone about a change.

Jason

Re: dejagnu group

[Jim Kingdon]

> I would certainly not cooperate with this repository until the
> Cygnus-internal, customer confidential, information, tags, and
> infrastructure is completely stripped.

Information from years ago?  Sorry, I just can't see the need to
bother.

Furthermore, there are pitfalls here (what would it sound like if
slashdot reads "Red Hat cracks down on Rob"?).  If our customers care,
we can't just ignore it, yes.  But if it is hypothetical and seems
unlikely, I'd probably argue for just not worrying about it.

Re: dejagnu group

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000412002350.A10419@shell17.ba.best.com >you write:
  > More importantly, Rob's repository is _still_ an unsanitized tree
  > that he copied from Cygnus when he left.  A Cygnus person should
  > get on bmoss/krk to get this resolved -- both bmoss and krk said
  > they would follow up with it quickly, but nothing has changed on
  > the sourceforge repo.  The repository, as is, is not acceptable
  > for public consumption.  If nothing else, contact VA and get this
  > project pulled.
What needs to happen is for someone from Cygnus to review the code and
find any unsanitary bits.

Rob has pulled bits that I pointed out were still secret -- that was
before the repo went up on sourceforge -- at least he said he pulled
the secret bits, I haven't actually followed up and checked.

jeff

Re: dejagnu group

[Andrew Cagney]

Tom Tromey and Jeff Law wrote:
> 
> Andrew> Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to
> Andrew> move a few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.
> 
> Done.

Thanks, Thanks.

	Andrew

dejagnu group

[Andrew Cagney]

Hi,

Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to move a
few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.


	Andrew

Re: dejagnu group

[Kim Knuttila]

Bob and Angela went through a process with Rob 2 months ago
that was supposed to result in cleaning of bits we cared
about. Rob agreed to do it. It sounds like it didn't get
done?

Anyway, Rob has been pretty agreeable about removing stuff
from his tree. I've asked angela and bob to confirm that the
desired actions have taken place and if not, resume the
discussion with Rob. thx for the heads up.

--krk.

At 08:31 AM 4/12/00 -0400, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> > I would certainly not cooperate with this repository until the
> > Cygnus-internal, customer confidential, information, tags, and
> > infrastructure is completely stripped.
>
>Information from years ago?  Sorry, I just can't see the need to
>bother.
>
>Furthermore, there are pitfalls here (what would it sound like if
>slashdot reads "Red Hat cracks down on Rob"?).  If our customers care,
>we can't just ignore it, yes.  But if it is hypothetical and seems
>unlikely, I'd probably argue for just not worrying about it.

Re: dejagnu group

[Andrew Cagney]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> Who makes decisions about write access for dejagnu?
> I have a patch I'd like to check in.

The official dejagnu sources are on http://sourceforge .<something>.  I'd
suggest submit the patch there and also apply the change to the local
mostly maintenance branch.  I assume it is nothing radical.

I think Jim Blandy was also keeping an eye on the local dejagnu.

	Andrew

Re: dejagnu group

[Tom Tromey]

Andrew> Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to
Andrew> move a few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.

Done.
Who makes decisions about write access for dejagnu?
I have a patch I'd like to check in.

Tom

Re: dejagnu group

[Tom Tromey]

Andrew> The official dejagnu sources are on
Andrew> http://sourceforge .<something>.  I'd suggest submit the patch
Andrew> there and also apply the change to the local mostly
Andrew> maintenance branch.  I assume it is nothing radical.

I sent the patch to Rob already.
I'm just going to give myself write permission for the sourceware
dejagnu.

T

Re: dejagnu group

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 38F4115B.EC6098A@cygnus.com >you write:
  > Hi,
  > 
  > Could someone please add me to the dejagnu group.  I'd like to move a
  > few files into the old dejagnu ftp directory.
Done.
jeff