New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make the documentation build reproducibility. #25

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 9, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@lamby
Contributor

lamby commented Dec 16, 2017

Whilst working on the Reproducible Builds effort [0], we noticed
that parso could not be built reproducibly.

Patch attached that uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH [1].

[0] https://reproducible-builds.org/
[1] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/

@lamby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lamby

lamby Dec 16, 2017

Contributor

This has been filed in Debian as https://bugs.debian.org/884527

Contributor

lamby commented Dec 16, 2017

This has been filed in Debian as https://bugs.debian.org/884527

Show outdated Hide outdated docs/conf.py
@davidhalter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidhalter

davidhalter Dec 16, 2017

Owner

How did you even find this? I'm just wondering :)

Owner

davidhalter commented Dec 16, 2017

How did you even find this? I'm just wondering :)

@blueyed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@blueyed

blueyed Dec 16, 2017

Contributor

Just something I've vaguely remembered - maybe even from Ubuntu/Debian days.
Searching for "copyright year" brings up http://www.contentious.com/2007/01/07/copyright-notice-is-the-year-really-necessary/ for example.

Contributor

blueyed commented Dec 16, 2017

Just something I've vaguely remembered - maybe even from Ubuntu/Debian days.
Searching for "copyright year" brings up http://www.contentious.com/2007/01/07/copyright-notice-is-the-year-really-necessary/ for example.

@lamby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lamby

lamby Dec 17, 2017

Contributor

Feel free to drop the year (which would obviously close this issue). I tend to not submit those particular requests as it's a "harder sell", prefering just to fix the existing data. :)

Contributor

lamby commented Dec 17, 2017

Feel free to drop the year (which would obviously close this issue). I tend to not submit those particular requests as it's a "harder sell", prefering just to fix the existing data. :)

@davidhalter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidhalter

davidhalter Dec 17, 2017

Owner

I agree that having this discussion is probably harder than anything else :)

But in this case I guess @blueyed is right and we can probably remove the whole copyright thing. It doesn't make any sense. The copyright exists anyway and we're not really interested in protecting the documentation. If anything we'd be interested in protecting the code. Since the code is MIT licensed we obviously don't care about that either :)

So if you could just change the PR to remove everything, thank you :)

Owner

davidhalter commented Dec 17, 2017

I agree that having this discussion is probably harder than anything else :)

But in this case I guess @blueyed is right and we can probably remove the whole copyright thing. It doesn't make any sense. The copyright exists anyway and we're not really interested in protecting the documentation. If anything we'd be interested in protecting the code. Since the code is MIT licensed we obviously don't care about that either :)

So if you could just change the PR to remove everything, thank you :)

@lamby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lamby

lamby Dec 17, 2017

Contributor

@davidhalter Done.

Contributor

lamby commented Dec 17, 2017

@davidhalter Done.

@davidhalter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidhalter

davidhalter Jan 9, 2018

Owner

Thanks man!

Owner

davidhalter commented Jan 9, 2018

Thanks man!

@davidhalter davidhalter merged commit 332c57e into davidhalter:master Jan 9, 2018

1 of 2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build failed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 88.574%
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment