well that's frustrating. It was approximately:
[1]: The use of ammending-author started as a way of handling gnarly cherry-picks back to earlier release lines in HBase, but I've seen it show up on a couple of multiple-author patches generally. The HBase reference guide is 404 at the moment, so the best link I can find is the mailing list thread the explanation references: http://search-hadoop.com/m/DHED4wHGYS On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> -- Sean
