3 Commits (54606a0a89bc5e90b5295179e5b776f6a2df8cfa)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Will Norris	3ec5be3f51	all: remove AUTHORS file and references to it ... This file was never truly necessary and has never actually been used in the history of Tailscale's open source releases. A Brief History of AUTHORS files --- The AUTHORS file was a pattern developed at Google, originally for Chromium, then adopted by Go and a bunch of other projects. The problem was that Chromium originally had a copyright line only recognizing Google as the copyright holder. Because Google (and most open source projects) do not require copyright assignemnt for contributions, each contributor maintains their copyright. Some large corporate contributors then tried to add their own name to the copyright line in the LICENSE file or in file headers. This quickly becomes unwieldy, and puts a tremendous burden on anyone building on top of Chromium, since the license requires that they keep all copyright lines intact. The compromise was to create an AUTHORS file that would list all of the copyright holders. The LICENSE file and source file headers would then include that list by reference, listing the copyright holder as "The Chromium Authors". This also become cumbersome to simply keep the file up to date with a high rate of new contributors. Plus it's not always obvious who the copyright holder is. Sometimes it is the individual making the contribution, but many times it may be their employer. There is no way for the proejct maintainer to know. Eventually, Google changed their policy to no longer recommend trying to keep the AUTHORS file up to date proactively, and instead to only add to it when requested: https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/authors. They are also clear that: > Adding contributors to the AUTHORS file is entirely within the > project's discretion and has no implications for copyright ownership. It was primarily added to appease a small number of large contributors that insisted that they be recognized as copyright holders (which was entirely their right to do). But it's not truly necessary, and not even the most accurate way of identifying contributors and/or copyright holders. In practice, we've never added anyone to our AUTHORS file. It only lists Tailscale, so it's not really serving any purpose. It also causes confusion because Tailscalars put the "Tailscale Inc & AUTHORS" header in other open source repos which don't actually have an AUTHORS file, so it's ambiguous what that means. Instead, we just acknowledge that the contributors to Tailscale (whoever they are) are copyright holders for their individual contributions. We also have the benefit of using the DCO (developercertificate.org) which provides some additional certification of their right to make the contribution. The source file changes were purely mechanical with: git ls-files | xargs sed -i -e 's/\(Tailscale Inc &\) AUTHORS/\1 contributors/g' Updates #cleanup Change-Id: Ia101a4a3005adb9118051b3416f5a64a4a45987d Signed-off-by: Will Norris <will@tailscale.com>	4 months ago
Will Norris	71029cea2d	all: update copyright and license headers ... This updates all source files to use a new standard header for copyright and license declaration. Notably, copyright no longer includes a date, and we now use the standard SPDX-License-Identifier header. This commit was done almost entirely mechanically with perl, and then some minimal manual fixes. Updates #6865 Signed-off-by: Will Norris <will@tailscale.com>	3 years ago
Josh Bleecher Snyder	4bb2c6980d	util/testingutil: new package with MinAllocsPerRun ... testing.AllocsPerRun measures the total allocations performed by the entire program while repeatedly executing a function f. If some unrelated part of the rest of the program happens to allocate a lot during that period, you end up with a test failure. Ideally, the rest of the program would be silent while testing.AllocsPerRun executes. Realistically, that is often unachievable. AllocsPerRun attempts to mitigate this by setting GOMAXPROCS to 1, but that doesn't prevent other code from running; it only makes it less likely. You can also mitigate this by passing a large iteration count to AllocsPerRun, but that is unreliable and needlessly expensive. Unlike most of package testing, AllocsPerRun doesn't use any toolchain magic, so we can just write a replacement. One wild idea is to change how we count mallocs. Instead of using runtime.MemStats, turn on memory profiling with a memprofilerate of 1. Discard all samples from the profile whose stack does not contain testing.AllocsPerRun. Count the remaining samples to determine the number of mallocs. That's fun, but overkill. Instead, this change adds a simple API that attempts to get f to run at least once with a target number of allocations. This is useful when you know that f should allocate consistently. We can then assume that any iterations with too many allocations are probably due to one-time costs or background noise. This suits most uses of AllocsPerRun. Ratcheting tests tend to be significantly less flaky, because they are biased towards success. They can also be faster, because they can exit early, once success has been reached. Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josh@tailscale.com>	5 years ago