On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:28 AM, James Strachan wrote: > On 10 November 2010 15:15, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Wednesday 10 November 2010 9:59:11 am James Strachan wrote: >>> On 10 November 2010 14:51, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> For most of the people on this list, it ISN'T a big deal. We deal with >>>> svn and mvn every day. For others, it could be. >>> >>> Given 99% of all our documentation and web content is developed by >>> committers or folks who are capable of editing text files and using >>> git/svn, I'd rather use a system that helps the 99% be more effective. >>> >>> Maybe you should just help out this one CXF person & show them how to >>> fork & commit to github (its very easy), then you can easily pull >>> their commits from there? >> >> Umm.. no. Pulling branches from github is NOT, at this point, an >> acceptable >> way of getting content into an Apache product. They would still need to >> create a patch and attach it to JIRA with the "grant" checkbox checked. > > Whatever happens folks have to raise a JIRA and click the "grant" checkbox. > > I fail to see why a link to a specific commit (i.e. a link to a number > of patches) is any less suitable than a number of patch files being > attached in place to the JIRA. Got anything specific to back this up > or is it just that we've not done it before? > > Patch files are a total PITA for both the person contributing and the > person applying the patch. (They usually break, get out of sync, have > whitespace issues and frequently have the wrong path information in > them & often have problems with new/renamed/deleted files). > > If this discussion really is about being a "community issue" and > making it easy for both folks to contribute and for committers to > apply those contributions, I'd rather we figure out this issue of > using links to git commits as an alternative to patch files on JIRAs - > this could make a *massive* difference to both getting contributions > and more effectively applying them IMHO. Helping scm-novices > contribute to documentation (which they've never really done so far on > Camel anyway) seems quite irrelevant in comparison. I don't know if this is a scm-novices issues. We had contributions from not committers in the past. Johan (before his commiter days) is one example, Steve Bate is another. I would rather ask them how likely would it be to contribute to doc if they had to co/edit/submit-patch, vs edit in-place wiki style. I know they are not scm-novices.
I am open to any alternative that would not raise the barrier to entry for documentation contributors and that's acceptable to the ASF. Hadrian > > -- > James > ------- > FuseSource > Email: ja...@fusesource.com > Web: http://fusesource.com > Twitter: jstrachan > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration
