On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Stephan Wehner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Jan Lehnardt<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6 Aug 2009, at 15:13, Robert Dionne wrote:
Git really encourages a more distributed, less centralized
approach to
development, that allows the centers of gravity to move as they
evolve. This
is a good and healthy thing in many contexts, perhaps less so in
others.
I'm not sure what the issue is with respect to the CLA. What
prevents you
from representing a contribution as your original work because it
originated
in GitHub? How does playing in an internal Apache sandbox solve
that?
All ASF committers singed a CLA that says all work committed has
been done
by the committer or has gone through incubator IP clearance. If you
get a
patch on github, that is not your work, when you then commit that,
you break
the CLA. If you do sole development on github, no problem, but github
encourages the code-collaboration.
I don't quite understand. To me the solution is:
Then you shouldn't commit patches through git that are not based on
your work?
The difference between git / subversion here is that git makes it
easier for others to
fork. But what goes into your repository is still under your control.
What am I missing?
Stephan
Hi Stephan, I think you've got it. If someone sends me a pull request
on GitHub, I can't apply the patch to some feature I'm working on and
then commit the result to ASF SVN. I have to ask that the patch be
submitted to JIRA (where the submitter explicitly selects an ASF
license) instead.
I hope that as long as all the committers are clear on the ground
rules we can continue to develop on git/github. I'm too enamored of
distributed version control to go back to SVN branches willingly.
Adam
