Yes, that is the point. Sending a PR is intent! BUT if it is a large change, we need insurance that it is the work of the contributor, and not copy/pasted from somewhere else, and that they cannot retract it later. This is what the CLA offers us. Currently, as Shaz pointed out above, we state firmly that we require an iCLA, so this will simply state more clearly how we work with PRs.
@purplecabbage risingj.com On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > So, it's basically the same system that we have now. I still think we > should get clear intent from the author, since that's more useful and easy > than determining whether it's trivial. I mean, isn't sending a PR through > GitHub already clear intent? > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You decide per pr if you think it is trivial. > > > > > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'll agree to this, since I don't know what the definition of trivial > is > > > w.r.t. Apache. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jesse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > @purplecabbage > > > > risingj.com > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bump. There can't be lazy consensus on this. Before I potentially > > waste > > > > > time on drafting a proposal, trying to feel the temperature on this > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It's up to us to decide, and right now we require the iCLA except > > for > > > > > > trivial contributions. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to change this to a more relaxed requirement: > > > > > > 1. Non-committers do not require an iCLA (you need one anyway to > > get > > > an > > > > > > account, so that's really a non-issue) > > > > > > 2. Require a clear intent by the author to contribute under our > > > normal > > > > > > terms, for a non-trivial change > > > > > > > > > > > > So some of you will be wondering, what does Apache say about > this? > > > > > > From: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastru > > > > > > cture-dev/201112.mbox/%3CA603FFCE-623B-43E9-87F8- > > > [email protected] > > > > > %3E > > > > > > > > > > > > Roy Fielding: > > > > > > "Yes, that opinion comes from me speaking as a board member and > > > > > > author of the Apache License, and has previously been cleared > > > > > > with Apache's legal team for a long ago discussion with > Incubator. > > > > > > We don't need a CLA on file to accept contributions from > > > > non-committers. > > > > > > We just need a clear intent by the author to contribute under > > > > > > our normal terms." > > > > > > > > > > > > Other opinions: http://apetro.ghost.io/apache- > contributors-no-cla/ > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to change our Contribute page: > > > > > > http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ... as well as any PR templates: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-media/blob/master/. > > > > > > github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > > > > > > > > > > > > This declaration of intent, if posted on Github, will be > reflected > > on > > > > > > [email protected] since Apache sends out an email on each > PR > > or > > > > > > comment to a PR, so we will be able to track it in our archives. > > > > > > > > > > > > As usual it is always the committer's responsibility to make sure > > > that > > > > > all > > > > > > code they push to a repository is compliant with ASF policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
