+1 for this approach On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for #2. > > Also, I like the convention: ACCUMULO-XXXX.#.patch, where XXX is the > ticket number, and # is the 1-up identifier. > > The ACCUMULO-XXXX part is nice so you don't lose context when you > download the file locally, and the .patch suffix is nice because many > editors will do syntax highlighting. (of course, I'm talking about > patches for the filename extension... one could just as easily provide > a .java file or a .jpg or something else). > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, William Slacum > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more >> history and less mystery. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> #2 as well. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I too am in favor of the patch history being available. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Corey Nolet >>> Senior Software Engineer >>> TexelTek, inc. >>> [Office] 301.880.7123 >>> [Cell] 410-903-2110 >>>
