I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree with rebasing to master. On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a page > that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that. > The rest is for another audience. > On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It >> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but >> your recommendations were: >> >> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider >> implicit >> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide. >> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures >> in term of lines of code :-) )." >> >> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list, >> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be >> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise. >> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to >> this level in my experience." >> >> >> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA. >> I'll remove that section from the guide :) >> >> Thanks for checking! >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> == Contributor license agreement == >> >> >> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[ >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions >> and patches attached to a [[ >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are assumed >> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may not >> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in place. >> >> >> > >> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason >> > the project wishes to require them? >> > >> > --David >> >
