[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Help need in Savannah

From: Mario Castelán Castro
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Help need in Savannah
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:45:47 -0600

Hash: SHA256

March 20th 2010 for Alex Fernandez <address@hidden>, Alexander
Shulgin <address@hidden> copy address@hidden,
address@hidden thread "Help need in Savannah"


>How long does this process take, in a typical case?

There is no "typical" case.  Some project met all the hosting
requirement and are approved just after reviewing the tarball.  Most
cases some file lack the licensing information or so, and you have to
ask the mantainer to include it and upload an updated tarball, then
you review it again, and if all is ok, approve the project.

>Is it hard?

I woudn't call it hard but rather, simple and time consuming.  You
have to pick a task and assign it to you (Assigned to) and put it "in
progress" (Status), then review:

*All files above 10 lines long include the licensing information:
 Copyrigth holder, copyrigth years as a list (Without ranges), license

*Every file than can't contain the licensing information inside (Like
 images for example) must be listed in README file along with it
 copyright and licensing information.

*A file called LICENSE, COPYING, PERMISSIONS or similar contains the
 license itself.  This is not nessesary if license is included in each
 file, as usually is the case with short, permissive licenses.

*GPL-ed project must use the "or any later" clause.

*Documentation don't speak of open source but free software instead,
 and GNU/Linux as such, not "Linux".  You don't need to dig a lot,
 just open the file in Emacs and search for Linux and open.

*Some times there are references to commercial software in the
 documentation or project description.  Again, open the documentation
 with Emacs, seach for "commercial" and Review carefully the context,
 most times, it must be replaced for "propiertary"; but very few
 times, is the correct word.

 Example: "This is a free commercial package I developed for Foobar
 Inc." is ok because the mantainer know what is free software, and he
 is talking about commercial free software; but however "This image
 editor is a replacement for commercial programs" is wrong, because
 commercial software isn't a problem.  The problem is propietary
 sotware, so the pharse must be "This image editor is a replacement
 for propietary programs"

*As in GNU we think software should not have owers, the software
 should not be named something like "Jhon Smith's editor".

 Also, when talking with the submitter or mantainer please avoid
 speaking of "your package" to refer to the package submitted, refer
 to the software by it name or by "this package", "the package you
 submitted" or so.

 The rationale is than we don't want than users nor developers think
 of free software as one phisical thing with owner.

*The names begining in "GNU" and the type "GNU software and
 documentation" is reserved for GNU packages.  Example: The
 hypotetical project name "GNU foo" and type="GNU package or
 documentation"is only allowed if foo is a GNU package.  Remember to
 the submitter than you are evaluating the project for be hosted in
 GNU Savannah, the instructions for suggesting a package to be
 included in GNU project are in

*Check the dependencies of the project.  The mantainer must list them
 in the "dependencies" section, else ask him for do so and check their
 license, all they must be fully free software, without exeption.

*The tarball, if compressed, must be in a free format like is gzip,
 bzip2, lzma, xz, lzip, but not rar.

*Ideally, all files in the tarball must be inside a directory with the
 project name.  Ask the mantainer to follow this model, but remember
 to him than this is not mandatory, just is an adviced for the comfort
 of the users of the program he submitted.

>you have to look at every submitted file? Do you have to dig a lot,
>or just a cursory look will do?

Well... the deepness of review vary with some factors:

If mantainer speaks of open source, of linux or sends a zipball (The
most common format in W systems) he is very likley, an developer
unexperienced with free software, and the software he submitted is
most likely to have mistrakes, so you should do the most deep review.

If the mantainer speak of free software, and have provided an accurate
information about the dependencies and it licences, he is likeley
experienced with free software.  If doccumentation is all ok, and
project is very large you can just review one third randomly selected
files in each directory, if there are no mistrakes at all in the
reviewed files you can trust the another 2/3 are ok, but if there is a
mistrake, review all source files.  If project is not so large review
all the files :).

The doccumentation review is the "hardest" part because sometimes the
licensing notice is at the end, or contain some of the "bad" words
(Open, linux, commercial, "for free", and so).  Code reviewing is much
easy, you just open the file and see if it have the copyright
information and license header, don't take more than one second per
file.  The copyright holder must be a complete human name ("Jhon
Smith") or company name ("Johnsoft Inc.") not a nicke "jsmt".

Always ping the old projects (> 10 days) before begin with
registration process.

Alex Fernandez: Please don't forget to say you are not administrator
yet in your first message when evaluating a project, when you think
all is ok let me know and I will do a final review and approve the
project.  After you get some experiencie I will propose to the rest
savannah hackers to give you administrator permissions.

The pending projects queue is in

And please subscribe to and

Alexander Shulgin: Any help is welcome, but the most recent projects
are more important, since I don't think the mantainers of old ones are
still interested in hosting in savnnah.

Regards and thanks both.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]