Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tracking issue for RFC 2044: dual-MIT/Apache2 licensing #43461

Open
4 of 7 tasks
est31 opened this issue Jul 24, 2017 · 7 comments
Open
4 of 7 tasks

Tracking issue for RFC 2044: dual-MIT/Apache2 licensing #43461

est31 opened this issue Jul 24, 2017 · 7 comments
Labels
B-RFC-approved Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Jul 24, 2017

This is a tracking issue for RFC 2044 (thread, rendered), to put the rust-lang/rfcs repo under dual MIT/Apache-2 licensing terms.

Necessary steps for execution:

Asking past contributors to agree with the licensing terms (with <=40 contributors each to bypass the github mention limit of 50):

And further:

@est31
Copy link
Member Author

est31 commented Jul 25, 2017

In order to document my process, a short note on methodology on how I've obtained the list of github names. I can't use the "contributors" page for that (nor the corresponding github api call), as a) both have limits to only show the top 100 contributors, and b) both completely ignore people not registered on github, or people with git configurations that are not set up to be recognized by github.

So I did the following:

  1. created a directory hashes
  2. obtain a list of commits, ordered by author. git shortlog --format="%H" > shl
  3. pipe that list to the bash script f.sh attached below and sort out dupes (where people used different emails or similar): cat shl | ./f.sh | sort | uniq. Note that I gave myself a github token and used it to authenticate, to get higher rate limits, so the curl command I used was also adjusted to send the token.
  4. This gave me a list of github account names, and for broken configs, it gave me "null HASH" entries. Also one entry invalid-email-address which I found out by grepping for that string in the hashes directory

The bash script reads in the list of commits ordered by author, and for each author, it takes the first commit mentioned, and obtains information about the commit via the github api, and stores it in a json file in the hashes directory. Then it extracts author info from that json file and prints it on stdout.

#!/bin/bash

while read author; do
	read hash;
	[ -f hashes/$hash ] || \
	curl -f "https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rfcs/commits/$hash" -o hashes/$hash || \
	echo "Error for commit $hash"
	[ -f hashes/$hash ] && cat hashes/$hash | jq -r -e '.author.login' | sed "s/^null$/null $hash/"
	while read hash; do
		[ -z "$hash" ] && break
	done
done

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added the C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC label Jul 25, 2017
@dscorbett
Copy link
Contributor

I don’t know if it legally matters, but all four sign-off issues have a typo: “to chose” instead of “to choose”.

@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member

I left a comment in the pull request, regarding the proposed license header for RFCs; please take a look at that before you start adding license headers to individual RFCs.

@varkor varkor changed the title Tracking issue for RFC 2044 Tracking issue for RFC 2044: dual-MIT/Apache2 licensing Jul 2, 2018
@est31 est31 closed this as completed Oct 19, 2018
@rust-lang rust-lang locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 19, 2018
@pietroalbini pietroalbini reopened this Oct 21, 2018
@rust-lang rust-lang unlocked this conversation May 18, 2019
@jonas-schievink
Copy link
Contributor

@pnkfelix I'm unlocking this issue since it seems to have been locked by accident. If it was intentional feel free to lock it again (and perhaps leave a comment as to why it is being locked).

@crlf0710
Copy link
Member

crlf0710 commented Oct 11, 2019

Status in Oct 2019: Most contributors has signified consent.

The remaining people and their merged PRs are:

@crlf0710
Copy link
Member

crlf0710 commented Jan 8, 2020

Added links to above comment. Also added information about two another RFCs whose major authors are others but they have commits in them.

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Tom's contribution isn't substantial (it's a link being changed) and doesn't need copyright assignment.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
B-RFC-approved Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

10 participants