wxruby users - Aug 2006 - Header files

I will probably be sending patches for about 30 header files.  I have 
put some TODO: notices in some of the header files where I''ve had to 
temporarily remove some things.  How do you guys want these?  A .zip of 
all the changed files?  A .zip of all the patches?  Individual e-mails?  
All attached to one?

Roy

On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 23:03 -0400, Roy Sutton wrote:
> I will probably be sending patches for about 30 header files.  I have 
> put some TODO: notices in some of the header files where I''ve had
to
> temporarily remove some things.  How do you guys want these?  A .zip of 
> all the changed files?  A .zip of all the patches?  Individual e-mails?  
> All attached to one?
Probably a zip of changed files would be most convenient. I can review
them with my diff utility (meld). 

If they were in distinct groups according to intent, that would be
slightly helpful, but I''m guessing that would be difficult.
I''m thinking
"Fix inheritance chains" vs. "Add missing methods" vs.
"Fixes to match
actual API" or whatever.



I should mention that the next few days will be somewhat challenging for
me. I''m facing some serious work deadlines; my primary computer has
died, and it was a laptop, so now I can only work from my desk; and we
might possibly get a direct hit from a hurricane on Wednesday, so I may
have to scramble to prepare for that. I''m in the Tampa Bay area, so if
I''m offline later this week, you can watch the news to see if
it''s due
to the storm.

(Our house is strong, secure, and 70 feet above sea level, so the
chances of actual personal damage or injury are very minimal.) 

Kevin

Roy Sutton wrote:
> I will probably be sending patches for about 30 header files.  
Very happy to help commit these. It''s great you''re able to
tackle the
murky SWIG etc problems.
> How do you guys want these?  A .zip of 
> all the changed files?  A .zip of all the patches?  Individual e-mails?  
> All attached to one?
>   
I don''t really mind. A few batches of patches or new files is ideal,
but
basically whatever suits you best.

Since this will affect a lot of files, maybe we could consider making a 
release first? things can be a bit unpredictable across platform, and it 
would be nice to have a reference version to test against.

We might not want to publicise this release beyond this list for now - 
but it might help us catch bugs with the gem packaging now. I''m willing
to do the bits to push out a release (see other email)

thanks
alex

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 19:36 +0100, Alex Fenton wrote:
> Since this will affect a lot of files, maybe we could consider making a 
> release first? things can be a bit unpredictable across platform, and it 
> would be nice to have a reference version to test against.
We should definitely do a CVS tag. Not sure a release is required.
> We might not want to publicise this release beyond this list for now - 
> but it might help us catch bugs with the gem packaging now. I''m
willing
> to do the bits to push out a release (see other email)
Interesting idea. I have thought something similar at times over the
last couple weeks. Kind of a stealth release. A release-candidate of the
preview alpha release. To get any big bugs out (including process
errors) before inviting a flood of downloads.

I would slightly lean toward doing it after checking in Roy''s stuff,
but
could be persuaded otherwise. I hope to do some merging tonight, so if
anyone has objections, speak now.

Since we will have a tag, we could always do our preview-of-the-preview
release from that.

Kevin

Kevin Smith wrote:
> A release-candidate of the
> preview alpha release. To get any big bugs out (including process
> errors) before inviting a flood of downloads.
>   
Yup - it will be hot download of the day as soon as we announce it on 
the main ruby mailing list. It will look better for us if we have ironed 
out any killer bugs with the install.
> I would slightly lean toward doing it after checking in Roy''s
stuff, but
> could be persuaded otherwise. I hope to do some merging tonight, so if
> anyone has objections, speak now.
>   
Great, if you have time to do the merge, please go ahead - I am moving 
house (for the third time in as many months) so not able to help with 
more complex stuff until the weekend. Shall we aim to release after this 
merge, and licence update to samples?

(sorry to keep prodding on this)
> Since we will have a tag, we could always do our preview-of-the-preview
> release from that.
Yes - let''s see how it looks after the merge (better, I hope and
expect)
and we can make a call about which tag to release from.

cheers
alex

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 18:38 +0100, Alex Fenton wrote:
> Great, if you have time to do the merge, please go ahead - I am moving 
> house (for the third time in as many months) 
Lucky you! Until I learned the knack of living light, every time I moved
I SWORE I was never moving again. Moving 1000+ miles every year for
three years straight kind of forces one to discard all but the
essentials.
> Shall we aim to release after this merge, and licence update to samples?
Sure. Looks like it will be 0.0.35.

I have not integrated Roy''s work yet, so I could see doing an internal
release before it, or after. I also have to look into some problems
reported against the Linux gem.

I''m about done for the night. If you could insert the comment header
below at the top of each of the .rb samples EXCEPT in the bigdemo
directory, that would be great. If not, I''ll try to do it myself in the
next couple days.

If anyone knows how to get a hold of Robert Carlin, I would love to get
his permission to (re-)license bigdemo.

Kevin



# wxRuby2 Sample Code
# Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Kevin B. Smith
# 
# Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining 
# a copy of this software, to deal in the Software without restriction,
# including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
# publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of any portion of 
# this Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished
# to do so. This copyright notice need not be retained in any derived
# work.
# 
# THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS
# OR  IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
# MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
# IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
# CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
# TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
# SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

> I have not integrated Roy''s work yet, so I could see doing an
internal
> release before it, or after. I also have to look into some problems
> reported against the Linux gem.
>   
Backwards and forwards compatibility across different versions of OS X 
build tools and os is still untested too, so would be nice to catch any 
probs with that too.
> I''m about done for the night. If you could insert the comment
header
> below at the top of each of the .rb samples EXCEPT in the bigdemo
> directory, that would be great. If not, I''ll try to do it myself
in the
> next couple days.
Sure, happy to do this, prob tomorrow. Could we use a shorter text that 
references the full licence instead of reproducing it verbatim in each 
sample? Something like

# wxRuby2 Sample Code
# Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Kevin B. Smith
#
# This code is subject by the terms of the wxRuby sample code
# licence. Please see LICENSE.TXT distributed with this package.

I copied the full text into a few samples, and it just seemed a little 
intrusive - i need to scroll down to see the magical incantation 
"require ''wx''" in them.

I took a quick look at rubycocoa, FxRuby (don''t have any licence on 
their samples), and WxWidgets (specifies the licence and copyright 
holder in each, but doesn''t reproduce the former in full).

cheers
alex

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:01 +0100, Alex Fenton wrote:
> Could we use a shorter text that 
> references the full licence instead of reproducing it verbatim in each 
> sample? Something like
> 
> # wxRuby2 Sample Code
> # Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Kevin B. Smith
> #
> # This code is subject by the terms of the wxRuby sample code
> # licence. Please see LICENSE.TXT distributed with this package.
Sure, that makes sense, except it should say "Please see
SAMPLES-LICENSE.TXT to distinguish it from the main license. And I
suppose SAMPLES-LICENSE.TXT should go in the samples/ directory (and we
need to be sure it ends up in the gems).
> I took a quick look at rubycocoa, FxRuby (don''t have any licence
on
> their samples), 
That''s really sad. Technically it means that nobody can grab snippets
of
code out of the samples to use in their own applications, regardless of
whether those apps are open or closed source.

Did you know that most web articles that contain sample code are under
very restrictive copyrights that also prevent you from using any of that
sample code in your apps? Very frustrating.

Obviously you would be allowed to grab a line or two, since fragments
that small are non-copyrightable. But if you wanted to grab a 10-line
on_paint method, you couldn''t legally. That''s why I feel so
strongly
about it.

Anyway, thanks for taking care of the actual paste+commit work!

Kevin

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:06 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > # wxRuby2 Sample Code
> > # Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Kevin B. Smith
> > #
> > # This code is subject by the terms of the wxRuby sample code
> > # licence. Please see LICENSE.TXT distributed with this package.
Actually, this would be even less intrusive:

# wxRuby2 Sample Code Copyright 2004-2006 Kevin B. Smith
# Freely reusable code--see SAMPLES-LICENSE.TXT for details.

Kevin

Kevin Smith wrote:
> Sure, that makes sense, except it should say "Please see
> SAMPLES-LICENSE.TXT to distinguish it from the main license. 
OK, the short headers are in there.
> And I
> suppose SAMPLES-LICENSE.TXT should go in the samples/ directory (and we
> need to be sure it ends up in the gems).
>   
Added; I''ve just checked and it gets picked up automatically by our 
current gem spec.
> That''s really sad. Technically it means that nobody can grab
snippets of
> code out of the samples to use in their own applications, regardless of
> whether those apps are open or closed source.
>   
I agree it''s important to get this right, and glad we''ve gone
for a
liberal licence. Thanks again for looking into it.

cheers
alex