I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming that we don't need ICLAs for patches.
> Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to ask > casual patchers for ICLAs. On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Accumulo Devs, >>> >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching updated >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here: >>> >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the advantage of >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch was, >>> especially in case of back porting issues. >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up identifier >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and >>> might >>> be useful in other ways. >>> >> >> I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a >>> strong >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean towards >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email notification. >>> >>> I agree I would like consistency. I lean towards 2 also, but I do not >> have a good reason, its just my preference. We should probably put >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch. I have seen other >> projects do this. >> > Ditto. > >> >> As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I >>> remember >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, so >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective. >>> >>> Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA? >> > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to the > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe the > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and not > having the jira checkbox). > >> >> >> Mike >>> >>> >
