incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:25:01 GMT
Fantastic Arve!  Thanks for pitching in.

-chip


On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Arve Paalsrud
<Arve.Paalsrud@bayonette.no> wrote:
> This code snippet is written by Jacob Gilley in a forum thread over at F5 Dev Central
in 2005, and not F5 Network themselves. F5's version and the original code are identical -
they've only added the copyright statements and optional GPL, so I've reached out to Jacob
and asked if he's willing to release it under Apache.
>
> Waiting for his reply.
>
> -Arve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Cole [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com]
> Sent: 1. august 2012 02:57
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
>
> +1 (non-binding and certainly not official) for taking the opportunity
> +to
> rewrite code as a chance to make things better, vs least efforts.
>
> Code written more than several months prior can often be written better anyway (one hopes
their skills age well :P).  Particularly, unit tests are a welcome great improvement whenever
there's code to be "rewritten".  I'd go so far as to say code without unit tests are often
time bombs that should be rewritten anyway.
>
> -A
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2012, at 6:52 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know the official ASF stance on what it means to
>> > "re-write" a section of code?
>>
>> There's no general answer to this - each case needs to be considered
>> separately. This was the closest I could find in the archives:
>> http://s.apache.org/rewriting-code
>>
>> >
>> > Specifically, I was looking at the F5 code [1] that was found during
>> > license header changes (and is considered a release blocker bug [2]).
>> > The code is actually quite trivial in nature, and I'm wondering what
>> > it would take to correctly write a replacement class file.  My
>> > assumption is that simply re-naming variables wouldn't work (and
>> > even if that was enough, there are only a handful of them in the file).
>>
>> I agree, renaming variables is definitely not right.
>>
>> In this case it is trivial (I googled and found a half-dozen examples
>> doing the same thing), so I'd say remove it and have someone
>> reimplement it. It may be better in these cases if they haven't seen
>> the original code, but not strictly necessary. It is probably a good
>> opportunity to refactor calling code too, if needed.
>>
>> In other cases, an option available is to ask the copyright holder if
>> they'd consider contributing/granting a license to a piece of code to
>> include here.
>>
>> Ultimately, we want to make sure we do the right thing by the authors
>> and that code here is intentionally contributed.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
>> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
>> http://twitter.com/brettporter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message