Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Jim Ingham]

Elena,

On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:

> the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has been there for a while.
> There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
> Are you referring to something else?

Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of Adam's work.  Since the 
tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF site, he naturally 
started from there.  But since they had been sitting for a while, the 
first task he faced was reconciling the changes in the relevant areas 
of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources between the time the 
tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that time, we were keeping 
pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done this job already - 
and the results were readily available in our CVS repository.  IIRC, we 
figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set him straight, but 
that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort that it would be 
good to avoid.

>
> Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith, Andrew and I merged.
>

I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS repository, at least that is 
what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew got to it, I think 
the work was pretty far along, so you probably didn't have any need to 
refer to our version.

> I think we went through this before, with the previoius tarball.  If
> it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget about it. We'll live
> with the status quo.

It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to be 
counter-productive.  That was what we "went through before" and the 
event somewhat justified my concerns.

Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier, and we even have 
anonymous access now for those who don't want to give out their e-mail 
addresses...  Plus then they have all the benefits of CVS in trying to 
figure out why we did all the screwy things we did...

Jim
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Jim Ingham                                                           
jingham@apple.com
Developer Tools - gdb

Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Mark Newman]

JIm -
 
could you point us to your cvs?
 
In addition can you provide a pointer or whatever to
something that indicates that that code is not Apple
IP and does not contain any Apple or anyone else's IP?
 
                                                      
            Mark


--- Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com> wrote:
> Elena,
> 
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM,
> gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
> 
> > the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has
> been there for a while.
> > There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
> > Are you referring to something else?
> 
> Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of
> Adam's work.  Since the 
> tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF
> site, he naturally 
> started from there.  But since they had been sitting
> for a while, the 
> first task he faced was reconciling the changes in
> the relevant areas 
> of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources
> between the time the 
> tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that
> time, we were keeping 
> pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done
> this job already - 
> and the results were readily available in our CVS
> repository.  IIRC, we 
> figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set
> him straight, but 
> that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort
> that it would be 
> good to avoid.
> 
> >
> > Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith,
> Andrew and I merged.
> >
> 
> I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS
> repository, at least that is 
> what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew
> got to it, I think 
> the work was pretty far along, so you probably
> didn't have any need to 
> refer to our version.
> 
> > I think we went through this before, with the
> previoius tarball.  If
> > it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget
> about it. We'll live
> > with the status quo.
> 
> It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to
> be 
> counter-productive.  That was what we "went through
> before" and the 
> event somewhat justified my concerns.
> 
> Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier,
> and we even have 
> anonymous access now for those who don't want to
> give out their e-mail 
> addresses...  Plus then they have all the benefits
> of CVS in trying to 
> figure out why we did all the screwy things we
> did...
> 
> Jim
>
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> Jim Ingham                                          
>                 
> jingham@apple.com
> Developer Tools - gdb
> 

Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Elena Zannoni]

Jim Ingham writes:
 > Elena,
 > 
 > On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
 > 
 > > the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has been there for a while.
 > > There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
 > > Are you referring to something else?
 > 
 > Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of Adam's work.  Since the 
 > tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF site, he naturally 
 > started from there.  But since they had been sitting for a while, the 
 > first task he faced was reconciling the changes in the relevant areas 
 > of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources between the time the 
 > tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that time, we were keeping 
 > pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done this job already - 
 > and the results were readily available in our CVS repository.  IIRC, we 
 > figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set him straight, but 
 > that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort that it would be 
 > good to avoid.
 > 

I see. Are you still taking the fsf changes on a regular basis?  I
believe that having a source drop represents also kind of a formal
handoff, a sign that Apple was willingly giving some code back to the
community, and at least go through the motions, but maybe that's just
me.

 > >
 > > Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith, Andrew and I merged.
 > >
 > 
 > I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS repository, at least that is 
 > what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew got to it, I think 
 > the work was pretty far along, so you probably didn't have any need to 
 > refer to our version.

Yes we worked from the Apple CVS repo. I remember it was quite
cumbersome to get to it though, and I forgot the URL.

 > 
 > > I think we went through this before, with the previoius tarball.  If
 > > it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget about it. We'll live
 > > with the status quo.
 > 
 > It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to be 
 > counter-productive.  That was what we "went through before" and the 
 > event somewhat justified my concerns.
 > 
 > Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier, and we even have 
 > anonymous access now for those who don't want to give out their e-mail 
 > addresses...  Plus then they have all the benefits of CVS in trying to 
 > figure out why we did all the screwy things we did...
 > 

... the pointer is? 

elena

 > Jim
 > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 > Jim Ingham                                                           
 > jingham@apple.com
 > Developer Tools - gdb

Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Jim Ingham]

On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:04 AM, Elena Zannoni wrote:

> Jim Ingham writes:
>> Elena,
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
>>
>>> the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has been there for a 
>>> while.
>>> There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
>>> Are you referring to something else?
>>
>> Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of Adam's work.  Since the
>> tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF site, he 
>> naturally
>> started from there.  But since they had been sitting for a while, the
>> first task he faced was reconciling the changes in the relevant areas
>> of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources between the time 
>> the
>> tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that time, we were keeping
>> pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done this job already -
>> and the results were readily available in our CVS repository.  IIRC, 
>> we
>> figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set him straight, but
>> that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort that it would be
>> good to avoid.
>>
>
> I see. Are you still taking the fsf changes on a regular basis?  I
> believe that having a source drop represents also kind of a formal
> handoff, a sign that Apple was willingly giving some code back to the
> community, and at least go through the motions, but maybe that's just
> me.

We got caught up in the flurry of getting the WWDC & then the Panther 
releases done, so we are about 8 months behind.  Klee is busy 
rectifying this now, though there have been lots of substantive changes 
- so it is taking him a little longer than he thought it would.  I 
would suggest waiting another couple of weeks before poking around.

Yeah, Andrew said something of the sort last time.  The fact that we 
signed the blanket copyright assignment, and post all the code on a 
public server with all the proper copyright info in place, plus 
periodic "Take it, you are welcome..." posts here seem pretty good 
signs of this to me, however.  So I don't see how leaving droppings to 
rot on your ftp site every so often adds all that much.

>
>>>
>>> Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith, Andrew and I 
>>> merged.
>>>
>>
>> I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS repository, at least that 
>> is
>> what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew got to it, I think
>> the work was pretty far along, so you probably didn't have any need to
>> refer to our version.
>
> Yes we worked from the Apple CVS repo. I remember it was quite
> cumbersome to get to it though, and I forgot the URL.

Yes, for a while the Darwin folks wanted you to get an APSL account to 
access the repository, so you had to fake an e-mail address, and give 
them some bogus password.  I understand why they did this - getting 
involved in OpenSource projects was a new thing, and they were trying 
to get as much supporting info to argue with the more traditional side 
of the management.  But it was a bit of a pain.

Fortunately, the relationship with OpenSource is pretty much a done 
deal at this point, so they have dropped the requirement.

>
>>
>>> I think we went through this before, with the previoius tarball.  If
>>> it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget about it. We'll live
>>> with the status quo.
>>
>> It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to be
>> counter-productive.  That was what we "went through before" and the
>> event somewhat justified my concerns.
>>
>> Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier, and we even have
>> anonymous access now for those who don't want to give out their e-mail
>> addresses...  Plus then they have all the benefits of CVS in trying to
>> figure out why we did all the screwy things we did...
>>
>
> ... the pointer is?

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/tools/cvs/howto.html

Jim
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Jim Ingham                                                           
jingham@apple.com
Developer Tools - gdb

Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Jim Ingham]

On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Mark Newman wrote:

> JIm -
>
> could you point us to your cvs?

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/tools/cvs/howto.html

But as I told Elena, we got behind in merging what with all we had to 
do for Panther, so I would hold off looking at this for another couple 
of weeks.  It will probably be clearer when Klee is done.

>
> In addition can you provide a pointer or whatever to
> something that indicates that that code is not Apple
> IP and does not contain any Apple or anyone else's IP?
>

Our blanket copyright assignment is on file with the FSF, and we 
release all our gdb changes publicly with the FSF copyright statements 
in place.  I think this is sufficient.

Jim

>
>             Mark
>
>
> --- Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com> wrote:
>> Elena,
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM,
>> gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
>>
>>> the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has
>> been there for a while.
>>> There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
>>> Are you referring to something else?
>>
>> Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of
>> Adam's work.  Since the
>> tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF
>> site, he naturally
>> started from there.  But since they had been sitting
>> for a while, the
>> first task he faced was reconciling the changes in
>> the relevant areas
>> of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources
>> between the time the
>> tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that
>> time, we were keeping
>> pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done
>> this job already -
>> and the results were readily available in our CVS
>> repository.  IIRC, we
>> figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set
>> him straight, but
>> that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort
>> that it would be
>> good to avoid.
>>
>>>
>>> Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith,
>> Andrew and I merged.
>>>
>>
>> I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS
>> repository, at least that is
>> what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew
>> got to it, I think
>> the work was pretty far along, so you probably
>> didn't have any need to
>> refer to our version.
>>
>>> I think we went through this before, with the
>> previoius tarball.  If
>>> it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget
>> about it. We'll live
>>> with the status quo.
>>
>> It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to
>> be
>> counter-productive.  That was what we "went through
>> before" and the
>> event somewhat justified my concerns.
>>
>> Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier,
>> and we even have
>> anonymous access now for those who don't want to
>> give out their e-mail
>> addresses...  Plus then they have all the benefits
>> of CVS in trying to
>> figure out why we did all the screwy things we
>> did...
>>
>> Jim
>>
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>> Jim Ingham
>>
>> jingham@apple.com
>> Developer Tools - gdb
>>
>
>
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Jim Ingham                                                           
jingham@apple.com
Developer Tools - gdb

Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Mark Newman]

--- Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Mark Newman wrote:
> 
> > JIm -
> >
> > could you point us to your cvs?
> 
>
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/tools/cvs/howto.html
> 
> But as I told Elena, we got behind in merging what
> with all we had to 
> do for Panther, so I would hold off looking at this
> for another couple 
> of weeks.  It will probably be clearer when Klee is
> done.
> 
> >
> > In addition can you provide a pointer or whatever
> to
> > something that indicates that that code is not
> Apple
> > IP and does not contain any Apple or anyone else's
> IP?
> >
> 
> Our blanket copyright assignment is on file with the
> FSF, and we 
> release all our gdb changes publicly with the FSF
> copyright statements 
> in place.  I think this is sufficient.
> 

Sorry Jim -

I don't mean to be a pain but apparently it isn't.  I
have been working the copyright assignment issue with
our legal office and the FSF copyright team.  The FSF
position is that if I put in somebody else's code and
the FSF is sued over that code then I as the person
who put the code in am responsible for determining
that that code is OpenSource.  It does not matter that
I put the code in in good faith - I would be liable
for the FSF's legal costs and damages.  

So if I use Apple code without a specific disclaimer I
can be held responsible personally.  The pointer that
you provided does provide pointers to the GPL, APSL,
and LGPL but it does not provide a statement that all
of the changes made to the code belong to Apple.

FSF - can I use the code without that statement?

                             Mark

> Jim
> 
> >
> >             Mark
> >
> >
> > --- Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com> wrote:
> >> Elena,
> >>
> >> On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM,
> >> gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has
> >> been there for a while.
> >>> There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
> >>> Are you referring to something else?
> >>
> >> Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of
> >> Adam's work.  Since the
> >> tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the
> FSF
> >> site, he naturally
> >> started from there.  But since they had been
> sitting
> >> for a while, the
> >> first task he faced was reconciling the changes
> in
> >> the relevant areas
> >> of the tarball with the changes in the FSF
> sources
> >> between the time the
> >> tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that
> >> time, we were keeping
> >> pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had
> done
> >> this job already -
> >> and the results were readily available in our CVS
> >> repository.  IIRC, we
> >> figured out what was going on pretty quickly and
> set
> >> him straight, but
> >> that is the sort of pointless duplication of
> effort
> >> that it would be
> >> good to avoid.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Same story for the interpreter stuff which
> Keith,
> >> Andrew and I merged.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS
> >> repository, at least that is
> >> what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew
> >> got to it, I think
> >> the work was pretty far along, so you probably
> >> didn't have any need to
> >> refer to our version.
> >>
> >>> I think we went through this before, with the
> >> previoius tarball.  If
> >>> it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget
> >> about it. We'll live
> >>> with the status quo.
> >>
> >> It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely
> to
> >> be
> >> counter-productive.  That was what we "went
> through
> >> before" and the
> >> event somewhat justified my concerns.
> >>
> >> Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much
> easier,
> >> and we even have
> >> anonymous access now for those who don't want to
> >> give out their e-mail
> >> addresses...  Plus then they have all the
> benefits
> >> of CVS in trying to
> >> figure out why we did all the screwy things we
> >> did...
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
>
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> >> Jim Ingham
> >>
> >> jingham@apple.com
> >> Developer Tools - gdb
> >>
> >
> >
>
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> Jim Ingham                                          
>                 
> jingham@apple.com
> Developer Tools - gdb
>