Re: Planning for 2.18?

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On 01/04/2013 03:06 AM, Chris Leonard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
>> Community,
>>
>> I encourage everyone to step in and talk about what they
>> want to see in 2.18 and how we might accomplish it.
>>
>> Why plan?
>>
>> (a) It gives other people and other projects
>> visibility into what we consider important and
>> what will likely be available in the next release.
>> This allows others to coordinate better with us.
>>
>> (b) It causes us to take stock of the things
>> we consider important and prioritize against that.
>> This is one good way to make incremental progress over
>> time towards improving the project.
>>
>> Joseph Myers and I have started writing down some ideas here:
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.18
>>
>> A good place to look for ideas is our new master TODO list:
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Carlos.
> 
> The issue of the inadvertantly mangled license information lines in
> many existing glibc locales has been of some concern to downstreams
> (e.g. Sugar Labs, Debian, etc.) for some time.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11213
> 
> and
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555168
> 
> I have been gently poking Gnome Foundation Board members and FSF Legal
> Counsel (Donald R Robertson III via license-internal@fsf.org) on the
> matter and there has been some movement, which I am trying to get
> filed on the ticket "for the record".
> 
> The most recent update from FSF is:
> 
> ------------
> 
> "I've gotten approval on the use of the following language:"
> 
> ###
> This file is a part of GLIBC and contains locale data.The Free
> Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest in the
> locale data contained in this file. The foregoing does not affect the
> license of GLIBC as a whole. It does not exempt you from the
> conditions of the license if your use would otherwise be governed by
> that license.
> ###
> 
> "We should be making an announcement shortly regarding older locales
> files, but for now new locales files should use this statement in lieu
> of any other licensing statement. Thank you so much for your time, and
> let me know if you have any further questions."
> 
> ------------
> 
> In light of this incremental progress, it would be a thought to
> include implementing a resolution for #11213 across many locales files
> in the plans for 2.18.
> 
> It will no doubt be a tedious process to touch each locale file and to
> keep track of progress,  I am certainly willing to work on the
> administrivia of creating patches and tracking progress that will
> involved once FSF goes on record with how they want older locale files
> handled.  I'd need a collaborator with commit priv to review and
> commit.  Not exactly glamorous stuff, but important nonetheless.

Chris,

You are too modest, the mere fact that you are willing to help
and have been involved makes you a member of the community. You
don't need a collaborator, you need access to commit things yourself.

I would be more than too happy to give you commit access to update
the locales. You are showing initiative and leadership in an area 
where the project sorely needs it. Thank you for that.

The question that remains is: Would you like commit access?

If you would then please follow:
http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Accounts_on_Sourceware.org
* Get a sourceware.org account.
* Request to be added to glibc group for the glib repo.
* Please CC me on this and use me as a reference.

With commit access comes responsibility. If you have any questions
about git usage or a patch please don't hesitate to contact the list.
We are here to help.

Cheers,
Carlos.