I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom. I'd rather just search for committer guide or something, not contributing.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for reviewing Matt! > > Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the > squash as an optional step. > > Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have > just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of > the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for > them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good > that people know how we are going to merge their contributions. > Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option > :) > > On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >> >
