Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2017-05-15"

Revision as of 21:04, 13 July 2017

May 15, 2017

Attendees

• Gary O’Neall
• Sai Uday Shankar
• Thomas Steenberg
• Kate Stewart
• Anna Buhman
• Yev Bronshteyn

SPDX specification to github

• Philippe gave Thomas access to repository
• Thomas still moving over, Appendix 1. Base content is there. see:
  • https://github.com/tsteenbe/specification/blob/master/chapters/appendix-I-SPDX-license-list.md
  • https://github.com/tsteenbe/specification/blob/master/chapters/7-relationships-between-SPDX-elements.md
• Basic markdown is present. will work on Readme & contribution MD before pushing live.
• Improve rendering in .pdf in progress - works on mac. Willl send announcement to mail list as soon as pushed

GSoC Coordination

• Gary: online validation tools overlap concern, Kate clarified – only the titles are the same
• Uday: how will someone use a resource to get started?
  • Gary - mirroring same AWS instance from OpenChain, and make it available for students to use. $35/month to host. Same account and create an instance. Work out accounting.
  • Approval from OpenChain group to use their instance for additional work. Set up right credentials and access. Elastic beanstalk. Push from development to production cleanly.
  • Need a redirect subdomain mapping for AWS. Do this during bonding period. Will start creating github repositories - github.com/spdx/
  • Gary will set up repositories in SPDX github account - just needs to know name of repository and github id. (Kate to send in for Krys).

Github cleanup

• Some of the repos were contributed by other companies. (airs, osip) - would like their permission to rename/relocate
• Some created by core team but should be removed. (gitolite admin, spdx-rdf-vocabulary)
• Thomas & Gary to research best practice for dealing with older repositories, pinning them, deprecated, other solution

Next SPDX Spec

• See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJqWGU02ynzrJ5CvmX1z2mBssOSpuBvuKene8jVJGNI/edit
• relationships in license
  • Agree this is a good proposal
  • Gary will take to legal for discussion
  • Result an appendix
• Dependency version range
  • A solution to the problem when licenses may not be determinable at build time due to version range rather than specific version
  • Agree this is a good problem to solve
• Size of File optional
  • Some concern on additional fields being added to the spec, but it is optional
  • Agree this is OK to add
• Discussion on Limited information for some file contents of package, but not requiring all the files of the license
  • Can we use filesAnalyzed=false?
    • Doesn’t solve all the use cases
  • Discussion on views as being a solution
    • Discussion on whether this is a standard, tool, or best practices
    • SPARQL can be provided for views
  • Is this reducing the minimum to allow smaller documents