Sean, I think your footnote link got chopped. Tony
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I admit that my questions were as much to get more questions as > to advance an idea of answers. :) > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sean, > > Can you better define "completed by a non-committer"? > > > > Where the majority of the work is done by a non-commiter. I'd even err > this on the side of "any substantial", but that's largely because I try to > err > on the side of encouraging new people with visible credit. > > > > Some cases to consider > > Is "a jira" complete when a patch is submitted or when it is merged into > > the code repository? > > definitely when all work is complete, and for things that involve patches > to the code base, that would mean merged (either into a release line > or into a feature branch if the jira is a part of a mutli-jira effort with > such > a feature branch). > > > > If a patch requires a bit of work to integrate (and test), where does > that > > fall? > > In other projects I usually cover this with the commit's "signed-off-by". > if > there's a substantial amount of changes involved then an additional > "ammending-author" tag per extra contributor (e.g. hbase does this > as policy[1]). Figuring out when the tag is needed is largely a judgement > call AFAICT. > > In both of those cases, I'd personally prefer the jira go to whomever did > the bulk of the work. 'did the bulk of the work' could be the original > author or the > integrator depending on jira phrasing, e.g. 'incorporate this external > work' is different from a patch that is 80% done by an initial contributor > but finished by another. > > I've definitely seen projects take the other substantially less ambiguous > approach. Apache Curator, for example, assigns jiras to whatever > committer handled the merge. > > > What if a patch provider doesn't have a jira account? > > How would we track provenance of the contribution / grant to the ASF? > I guess by git information? At the risk of derailing this thread, is git > how we're doing this now? > > > What if integrating a patch a substantial rewrite of the patch? > > I'd usually push back on the contributor to do the rewrite in most cases > and use "amending-author" in git as described above for either the > original or amending author. > > > > > > I can certainly tell you what I did based on my ability to "introspect" > our > > team conventions from jira, commit log and mailing list in lieu of a > > documented committer guide. > > > > That would be wonderful. Would you be fine if I rolled the info up into > a PMC guide? > > -- > Sean >
