+1 as well, it's easy to do. I will do it if no-one objects in the next 72 hours.
On May 6, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > +1 to the THANKS file. > > On 5/4/13 6:58 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > >> (Copied from elsewhere...) >> >> I've been involved in similar discussions about what to do with pull >> requests on GitHub, etc. I think the general consensus was that as long as >> there is a reasonable indication that the work was being contributed to >> the >> project, then we are okay to include it. i.e. If somebody submits a PR to >> the CloudStack mirror, then we can include that if we want to, without >> doing any other checks. But if we spot a PR on a Citrix GitHub repository, >> that we could apply to CloudStack, we need to contact the original author, >> to make sure we have permission. The key being that we must establish >> reasonable intent. And I think we have that in the scenario you describe. >> >> In fact, we used to have a checkbox in JIRA that you used to have to tick >> to indicate when you were uploading that indicated were giving permission >> for the project to include your work. We removed that checkbox a while >> ago. I believe we took that action, because there was consensus that >> attaching a patch established intent. >> >> As for authorship. From a legal/policy perspective, author information >> should be kept out of source files. There are various reasons for this. >> But >> the gist is that it can give the impression that individual people "own" >> the various bits of code. And obviously, this can discourage >> participation. >> This is why all Apache source files state copyright as "The Apache >> Software >> Foundation", meaning "the lot of us", i.e. shared. >> >> Now, I can appreciate that PO files might be a bit different. I took a >> look >> at a few of them, and I don't see a problem from a policy perspective, >> especially if these is standard meta-data, or helps the translation >> effort. >> Now understanding how translations take place, I would ask: might having >> the last translator name in there discourage other translators from >> participating? As you mention, these files are machine generated, so my >> guess is: no. >> >> So, I think all that remains is a stylistic question. How do we want to >> attribute the hard work and dedication of our translation team? I know >> that >> with code, this is often done with an Author tag in Git, or in the >> comment, >> or what have you. But there are other options. What about a THANKSfile? >> >> On Apache CouchDB, our THANKS file is actually maintained in two ways. For >> anything that does not come in with an Author tag in Git, we put it in the >> file manually. For anything in Git, we actually automate that. >> >> See: >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=blob_plain;f=boots >> trap;hb=HEAD >> >> Grep for "THANKS" to see the code that updates the file. This is done when >> we are preparing a release artefact. Which might not work for us on >> CloudStack, as, presently, our release artefacts are pristine copies of >> our >> Git repository. But we might consider making a script that updates THANKS, >> and then checking in the changes. >> >> >> On 27 April 2013 01:00, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> >>> Why don't we ask them their preference (keeping dev@ in the loop as >>> well) >>> >>> --David >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> As such - I do not see a material difference in how the projects >>> that >>>>>>> are already using translate.a.o and how we function. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we bring it up to legal-discuss ? I am happy to do so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What question would we ask? >>>>> I see two possible questions, let me know if that isn't the case. >>>>> >>>>> If the question is 'Is accepting contributions from a plethora of >>>>> contributors to a project specific instance an acceptable way of >>> doing >>>>> business' I think the answer is obvious that translate.a.o does >>>>> exactly that mechanism and there seem to be no issues from a process >>>>> standpoint. >>>>> >>>>> If the question is 'Can the Transifex Apache CloudStack l10n projects >>>>> serve as an official contribution point' - I personally am >>> comfortable >>>>> saying that the message is currently clear that we treat them as >>>>> official. I also don't see a problem with doing so. Is this a point >>> of >>>>> contention with anyone else? Is there a problem there that I am not >>>>> seeing? >>>>> >>>>> Is there another question? >>>> >>>> I am fine with your statements and have no questions for >>> legal-discuss. >>>> >>>> I was merely bringing it up in the open to make sure people knew about >>> it. >>>> >>>> The only issue left IMHO is how we ack the authors of translations in >>> git ? >>>> >>>> -sebastien >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> NS >
