Right! It seems that I'm one of the very few people in Europe... Covering
the most boring hours in the irc channel! :)
El 20/06/2013 15:54, "Everett Toews" <[email protected]> escribió:

> Also, don't forget that Ignasi is in a very different timezone from most
> of us.
>
> You're in Barcelona, right Ignasi?
>
> Everett
>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:00 AM, Ignasi wrote:
>
> > Matt, I haven't had time until today to address your comments (and it's
> > been only around a day, I didn't intend to ignore them :)).
> >
> > Thanks for taking care of updating the guide in the meanwhile!
> > El 20/06/2013 07:09, "Matt Stephenson" <[email protected]> escribió:
> >
> >> Yeah, looks like moinmoin was case sensitive on my login.  Pinged
> >> silkysun@who was up and she managed to fix it.  I foolishly didn't
> >> follow
> >> instructions when I setup my login, I guess I'll need to find out how to
> >> fix that at some point.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to