Re: Hygienic rewrite of (ice-9 expect)

[Daniel Dinnyes <dinnyesd@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5705 bytes --]

I've rebased my changes onto a fork of Guile's main branch on Github:
https://github.com/dadinn/guile/tree/wip-hygienic-expect

Added back the original attributions and comments.
I've also tried to follow the branch-naming conventions. 😉

Also, I've added a module ice-9/expect-tests for some comprehensive tests.
Wasn't sure where to place it, and how to integrate into the existing
test-suite.

Not sure how to send a PR by email, but I suppose it should be easy to
pull, by adding my fork as an additional remote.

Best regards,
Daniel Dinnyes


On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 22:33, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:

>  >p 29-05-2023 om 03:40 schreef Daniel Dinnyes:
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > On Sun, 28 May 2023 at 14:39, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be
> > <mailto:maximedevos@telenet.be>> wrote:
> >
> >     I think this would gather more replies if:
> >
> >        1. It is sent as a patch that can be applied to the Guile source
> >     tree.
> >
> >     (You wrote:
> >
> >       > If the community likes this implementation, I would be happy to
> >       > apply/rebase my changes onto the official repo, and then we can
> go
> >       > from there!
> >
> >     but to determine whether I'm happy with it, it would be convenient if
> >     this were a proper patch.)
> >     (I'm not actually reviewing Guile stuff at the moment, but I find it
> >     likely that some others might hold the same view.)
> >
> >
> > Regarding patches, I think I've read somewhere that GNU wants
> > contributions in some different format,
> > than just URLs to pull-able GIT repos. Could you share with me some
> > guide how to do such patches,
> > or what format they are needed?
>
> Format: the result of 'git send-email', or 'git format-patch + attach
> the patch as an attachment'.  I've heard that the guide at
> <https://git-send-email.io/> for 'git send-email' is good.
>
> Still, setting up a fork + sending a PR (by e-mail), while not the most
> preferred format, would still be pretty good (‘git diff’ can then be
> used!).
>
> > I am assuming this <https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/> is
> the
> > repo of current guile tree, onto which to apply my changes.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Onto which branch?
>
> The branch named 'main'.
>
> > Would it possible to fork the repo on savannah, and then raise a PR from
> > there instead of patches?
>
> Savannah doesn't have a notion of 'forks' AFAIK. (Emphasis on the ‘I
> don't know’ in ‘AFAIK’, maybe it actually does have them in some form.)
>
> However, you can do a PR ‘manually’ by setting up a fork of the repo at
> some random hosting site of your choice, pushing some commits there, and
> sending a (free-form) e-mail to guile-devel@gnu.org with a message
> containing information on where to find the repository and which
> branch/commit.
>
> (You don't need PR / fork buttons to do PRs and forks!)
>
> > Also, I've tried to create account on savannah, but it keeps getting
> > deleted.
> > What would you recommend I do to ensure my account doesn't get removed?
>
> I don't have clue; I only fetch from savannah, I don't have an account
> there.
>
> > [...]
> > I am not sure I would agree with your assessment about /illegality/, and
> > the /derivative work/ categorization.
> > Even though these macros happen to expand to something similar as the
> > original ice-9 implementation,
> > the code itself is quite significantly different! If this is to be used
> > in ice-9, it would have to completely
> > replace the original expect.scm file, as nothing was copy/pasted from
> > there. The fact that parameter binding
> > names are the same is necessary for backwards compatibility, so those
> > wouldn't count even under the US laws
> > <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56639088>.
>
> I assumed it is a derivative work because you presented it as a ‘rewrite
> of [the original]’.  Maybe it's possible to rewrite something a lot
> until its no longer a derivative work (I don't know if that's possible),
> but by default I'd assume that rewrites are derivative works.
>
> I didn't use ‘same procedure names’ as a reason (as you wrote, those
> aren't a problem).
>
> > On second thought, I am wrong! The expect-select helper function looks
> > like a direct copy-paste job... little naughty me!
>
> TBC, I ascribe no guilt.  The thing is that I've noticed in the past
> that people often use the GPL without knowing what that entails
> precisely, which can have unintended consequences, like e.g.
> unintentionally licensing something as GPLv1+ instead of GPLv3+ (or
> GPLv3+ instead of GPLv3, but that mistake is actually pretty convenient
> for distributions :P).
>
> (Also, Guile relies on the (L)GPL as a form of protection against some
> forms of malice, so I think it's important that we also follow the
> (L)GPL terms itself.)
>
> > Nevertheless, I would be happy to add the necessary notices if that is
> > required.
> > Also, IIRC there would be another copyright assignment administrative
> work
> > somewhere down the line?
>
> The copyright assignment used to be required, but nowadays its optional.
>   Still, it does appear to be preferred.  You would get an e-mail by a
> Guile maintainer with more info, it's not something you initiate yourself.
>
> The page https://www.fsf.org/licensing/contributor-faq sort-of implies
> the opposite, but IIRC there is another page somewhere or gnu.org that
> doesn't; I don't know what's up with that.  (Either way, I'd think that
> things will work out in the end.)
>
> Best regards,
> Maxime Devos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7562 bytes --]