Ignasi,
This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it.  Please make it
writeable to admins.  I would like to clean it up since you're not
responding to my feedback.

Matt


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to