Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the same process as contributors for making changes.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >> >>> >> >> >> > >
