THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2011-08-23"
From SPDX Wiki
< Technical Team | Minutes
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == Attendees == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | * Bill Schineller | ||
| + | * Kirsten Newcomer | ||
| + | * Branden Robinson | ||
| + | * Peter Williams | ||
| + | * Gary O’Neall | ||
| + | * Kate Stewart | ||
| + | * Nicholaas Loke | ||
| + | * Jack Manbeck | ||
| + | * Marshal Clow | ||
| + | == Agenda == | ||
| + | * Weekly call Logistics | ||
| + | * LinuxCon Feedback | ||
| + | * Proposal for Spec Version numbering | ||
| + | * Tools source structure | ||
| + | * Verification Code algorithm | ||
| + | * Composite Packages | ||
| + | * “Garbage Files” | ||
| + | == Logistics == | ||
| + | * Move to 2:00 Eastern to accommodate west coast- considering that we don’t currently have any attendees from Europe. Kate will update Wiki. | ||
| − | + | == Feedback from LinuxCon == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | * Discussed relationship between SPDX packages and the needed for a hierarchical relationship | |
| − | + | * Discussed PDDL | |
| + | * Discussed compatibility between tags and RDF for future development | ||
| − | + | == Numbering for Spec. version == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | * Format AA.BB.CC | |
| − | + | ** AA – Major version - Incremented for changes incompatible with previous versions (current definition) | |
| − | + | ** BB – Minor version - would be used when changes may impact the consumer, but is compatible with previous versions | |
| − | + | ** CC – Micro version - would be used when the changes do not impact to the consumer of SPDX | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | == Tools source structure == | |
| − | + | ||
| + | * Create separate repositories for the different language tools | ||
| + | * Create a separate git-repo named “Python-SPDX-Tools” | ||
| + | * Rename current tools repo to “Java-SPDX-Tools” | ||
| + | * Kate will either send info to Gary or send info to Linux Foundation to make changes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note: Bugzilla has a target field to indicate which release the resolution is targeted for. There are no targets for detail “CC” versions; we will use the major version targets for those changes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Verification code algorithm == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Need to specify a better separator character “\n” is ambiguous – Kate will choose a character and update spec | ||
| + | * Update to the verification code algorithm would result in an increment to the micro version (e.g. 1.0.1) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Bug 818 – Composite packages == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Agreed to create a request for proposal | ||
| + | * Will update bug with additional information discussed on the call | ||
| + | * Three approaches were discussed: | ||
| + | ** Include all composite information in one document | ||
| + | ** Keep package documents separate and have separate new type of file to cross reference. | ||
| + | ** Enable multiple documents to cross reference each other | ||
| + | *** Link files | ||
| + | *** Unique IDs | ||
| + | **** Can use the verification code | ||
| + | * Signing documents | ||
| + | ** How does adding reviewer information impact the signing? | ||
| + | * Composite packages requirements | ||
| + | ** Requirements will be included in the request for proposal | ||
| + | ** We will discuss the requirements on next week’s call | ||
| + | |||
| + | == “Garbage Files” (e.g. .svn files) == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * All files need to be included in the file info, even “garbage files” | ||
| + | * Proposal to create a new file type – “CRUFT” – proposal for the mailing list. Gary will write a proposal in the form of a bug and send to the mailing list. (Bug 944 has been added with the proposal) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Technical|Minutes]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Minutes]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:58, 6 March 2013
Contents
Attendees
- Bill Schineller
- Kirsten Newcomer
- Branden Robinson
- Peter Williams
- Gary O’Neall
- Kate Stewart
- Nicholaas Loke
- Jack Manbeck
- Marshal Clow
Agenda
- Weekly call Logistics
- LinuxCon Feedback
- Proposal for Spec Version numbering
- Tools source structure
- Verification Code algorithm
- Composite Packages
- “Garbage Files”
Logistics
- Move to 2:00 Eastern to accommodate west coast- considering that we don’t currently have any attendees from Europe. Kate will update Wiki.
Feedback from LinuxCon
- Discussed relationship between SPDX packages and the needed for a hierarchical relationship
- Discussed PDDL
- Discussed compatibility between tags and RDF for future development
Numbering for Spec. version
- Format AA.BB.CC
- AA – Major version - Incremented for changes incompatible with previous versions (current definition)
- BB – Minor version - would be used when changes may impact the consumer, but is compatible with previous versions
- CC – Micro version - would be used when the changes do not impact to the consumer of SPDX
Tools source structure
- Create separate repositories for the different language tools
- Create a separate git-repo named “Python-SPDX-Tools”
- Rename current tools repo to “Java-SPDX-Tools”
- Kate will either send info to Gary or send info to Linux Foundation to make changes
Note: Bugzilla has a target field to indicate which release the resolution is targeted for. There are no targets for detail “CC” versions; we will use the major version targets for those changes.
Verification code algorithm
- Need to specify a better separator character “\n” is ambiguous – Kate will choose a character and update spec
- Update to the verification code algorithm would result in an increment to the micro version (e.g. 1.0.1)
Bug 818 – Composite packages
- Agreed to create a request for proposal
- Will update bug with additional information discussed on the call
- Three approaches were discussed:
- Include all composite information in one document
- Keep package documents separate and have separate new type of file to cross reference.
- Enable multiple documents to cross reference each other
- Link files
- Unique IDs
- Can use the verification code
- Signing documents
- How does adding reviewer information impact the signing?
- Composite packages requirements
- Requirements will be included in the request for proposal
- We will discuss the requirements on next week’s call
“Garbage Files” (e.g. .svn files)
- All files need to be included in the file info, even “garbage files”
- Proposal to create a new file type – “CRUFT” – proposal for the mailing list. Gary will write a proposal in the form of a bug and send to the mailing list. (Bug 944 has been added with the proposal)
