I'm able to edit it, fwiw. A.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >>>> >>> > >>>> >> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
