At one point we had active committers from both the UK and Sweden. On Jun 20, 2013 10:00 AM, "Ignasi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
