[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:34:04 +0000 |
On 7 January 2015 at 06:13, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> On 25/11/2014 15:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Questions for review:
>> * can we do the git cherry-pick thing I mention above?
>
> I'm afraid that would double the size of the repository (in terms of
> number of commits).
>
> One possibility is this:
>
> git checkout 158142c2
> git cherry-pick this-series~5 # patch 1
> git cherry-pick this-series~2 # patch 4
> git cherry-pick this-series~1 # patch 5
> git merge origin/master
> git checkout -p -- this-series~1 # patch 5
> git commit --amend -C HEAD
> git cherry-pick this-series # patch 6
>
> Then the reverts are implicit in the merge commit.
>
> However, this will probably still cause problems with bisection, since
> the merge base between 2.2 and 2.3 will be in prehistory.
I meant more in the sense of how we generated the eventual
relicensing-patch to apply to current master, rather than
trying to make master's actual history have weird things in it.
Anyway, it sounds like the thing I did is the best we can do.
>> * should we squash the revert and reimplement patches together?
>> (avoids bisection break but makes the revert-and-reimplement less clear)
>
> I think we can do that, provided the reimplemented functions are in
> different places than the originals, so that the revert-and-reimplement
> is still clear from the diff.
OK. I'll make sure I do that with the next version.
>> * are people happy with my attempt to clarify the licensing status of
>> the source files in patch 6, and my choice of GPLv2+ for future
>> contributions to them?
>
> I think SoftFloat-2a is more appropriate but I don't really care.
The thing is that after all these relicensings we end up with a
file with a mix of licenses in it. So for somebody actually
using the file the controlling license is GPLv2+. (In particular
all the RedHat contributions are GPLv2+, not SoftFloat-2a...)
So it seemed simplest to say 'GPLv2+ for future changes'; but
it wouldn't make any major difference to pick softfloat-2a I guess
(and that is the license covering the bulk of the code so it
does make more sense in some ways).
Thanks for looking at the series.
-- PMM
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Peter Maydell, 2015/01/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Paolo Bonzini, 2015/01/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a,
Peter Maydell <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Paolo Bonzini, 2015/01/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Peter Maydell, 2015/01/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Paolo Bonzini, 2015/01/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Peter Maydell, 2015/01/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Paolo Bonzini, 2015/01/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Peter Maydell, 2015/01/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a, Paolo Bonzini, 2015/01/12