[LU-1839] Update Whamcloud copyright messages to Intel for 2.3 release Created: 05/Sep/12 Updated: 22/Sep/12 Resolved: 22/Sep/12 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.3.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | Lustre 2.3.0 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Blocker |
| Reporter: | Andreas Dilger | Assignee: | Keith Mannthey (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Severity: | 3 |
| Rank (Obsolete): | 6336 |
| Description |
|
For the 2.3 release we need to change copyright messages for all Whamcloud copyright statements to be Intel, similar to There is an existing script build/updatecw.sh which should be modified to do this, instead of doing it by hand. It needs to leave the existing Oracle copyright statements intact. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Doug Oucharek (Inactive) [ 05/Sep/12 ] |
|
Does the Oracle copyright get added to new files? |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 05/Sep/12 ] |
|
Doug, definitely not, since they didn't develop the code. Please use the standard Whamcloud/GPL boilerplate and header comments as in lustre/mdd/mdd_lfsck.c until we know the format that Intel prefers. |
| Comment by Keith Mannthey (Inactive) [ 07/Sep/12 ] |
|
Ok just to be clear Whamcloud assigned all it copyrights to Intel? We need to change * Copyright (c) 2011, 2012, Whamcloud, Inc. to * Copyright (c) 2011, 2012, Intel Corporation. All Oracle copyrights remain intact as well as the original GPL2 headers (mostly Sun flavored as I see). Any files that have been touched since 2010-06-01 should have an Intel copyright assignment. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 09/Sep/12 ] |
|
I don't know if there is a better Intel copyright or not. Maybe Peter knows? AS for files modified since 2010, you need to take care with that, since it may be some files are modified only by non-Whamcloud commits, and we shouldn't add an Intel copyright in that case. I think it should be possible to find the small number of modified files that do not have Whamcloud copyright lines, and manually check whether any commits are from WC or not. |
| Comment by Keith Mannthey (Inactive) [ 11/Sep/12 ] |
|
I think I will update the script to change Whamcloud -> Intel. Any additional copyright issues I will work in a manual effort. I have seen "Intel Corporation." if other Intel kernel projects. |
| Comment by Keith Mannthey (Inactive) [ 13/Sep/12 ] |
|
Ok inital script changes are in review http://review.whamcloud.com/3975 A pass of the script plus editing of two files the script directs me to can be seen at http://review.whamcloud.com/3974
|
| Comment by Keith Mannthey (Inactive) [ 14/Sep/12 ] |
|
I want to be sure this Also I noticed a change or two that resulted in a new year stamp from a previous copyright update. Any direction with this would be helpful. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 15/Sep/12 ] |
|
As commented in the patch inspection itself, the removal of the vim/emacs modelines is NOT a good reason to add the Intel copyright to those files. Please review all of the files that have new copyright lines (i.e. (+2,-0) lines) or updated the year to 2012, and verify that there were actually commits of real code to those files. It may also be that for some files the addition of the Whamcloud copyright was committed in 2012, but the copyright line only reports 2011, since that is when the code was actually modified. Please do not add the 2012 copyright in that case. |
| Comment by Keith Mannthey (Inactive) [ 17/Sep/12 ] |
|
I introduced the idea of patch exclusion in a new version of the script and fixed up a few things. For now I exclude the vim/emacs modeline change and the last copyright update, more patches can be added in the futre. As prevous suggestion I broke the big change up into 2 patches. http://review.whamcloud.com/4017 and http://review.whamcloud.com/4016 There are two issues that I am aware of. 1. Some files don't have long git history. An example is libcfs/include/libcfs/libcfs_cpu.h. There is only git history for 2012 and as such a previous 2011 Whamcloud copyright notice is omitted. This can be fixed if we deem it worthy. 2. Year ranges are a little odd. I left things as the previous scripts have been doing basically First, Last for the years, middle years are omitted. For instance a file that has C 2010,2011 can become C 2010,2012 (no mention of 2011). There are some large gaps in previous commits 2005, 2010 but I was wondering about changing to First - Last ie 2010 - 2012. Also if #1 is fixed it would be possible to do a long list of years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, xxxx (all would be verified years of commits). Is there any thoughts about the format we want our year ranges? Right now things are done as they have been in the past. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 19/Sep/12 ] |
|
I suspect that e.g. libcfs_cpu.h was recently added, so it is correct to only have a 2012 copyright. For files with multiple years, at Oracle they only showed "first, last" year, since in-between years are irrelevant for copyright legal purposes, and just clutter up the code. Of course, Whamcloud itself only exists since late 2010, so nothing should be copyright before that year. Also, it isn't clear that "first - last" is correct, if there wasn't a change in a middle year. Please just stick with current format for now. |
| Comment by Keith Mannthey (Inactive) [ 19/Sep/12 ] |
|
I also chatted with Peter today and I feel the current patch set is of the same level of the Oracle statements. I am working to get the patches test/review. |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 22/Sep/12 ] |
|
Landed for 2.3 |