Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for contributor/committer docs.
Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive : https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
