For this discussion I'd refer to these links
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
I know there are no strict rules about that, but don't forget that an ICLA is not a CCLA.
Regarding this aspect
"... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
is not crystal clear to me
Actually, m concern is the same as Scott's and Ashish, but I agree that we
don't need strict rule at this stage :D.
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[email protected]>
My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any
problems in commit logs with:
"... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
or similar.
If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is
happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this
specifically.
Jacopo
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated to
me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've gotten by
fine all these years without it so why start?
Regards
Scott
On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry to
make more?
-David
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a
patch then they could request that their company is attributed in
the commit log. A committer would then be required to do so in
order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed
to attribute their own company for their commits.
Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and
committing community contributions?
"New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.
Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.
Regards
Scott
On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not
allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to
force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company
name police, either way.
-David
On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
+1 for Scott's comment.
Consider the case:
Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the
trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the
fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
"Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The
new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be
sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
On the first time committer won't mind writing other company
name but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis
then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am
committing the code and also mentioning the name of other
company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is
right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the
reduction in the contribution?
If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if
committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can
ask to put the company name.
I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit
logs. So here is the *BIG* -1 for putting company name in
commit logs.
Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client
and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then
committer can mention the name of client company in the commit
log.
--
Ashish
Scott Gray wrote:
Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it
every in log which is what could very well happen once the ball
gets rolling. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm
just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they
are now.
Regards
Scott
On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that
isn't what is happening here.
In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully
done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant
way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
-David
On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other
hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned
into commercials:
"XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For
Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
or something like that.
-Adrian
David E Jones wrote:
Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any
problem with this. Attribution to persons is important, and
I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established with
the individual and company contributor license agreements I
have no issue with attribution to employers of contributors
if the individual was paid to create something.
Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have
for working on this software and contributing to the
project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took
credit for work they did or a company took credit for work
they sponsored.
-David
On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans,
I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by
attributing a commit to your company within the commit
message, OFBiz is business software and of course a large
majority of the commits are funded by various companies.
Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want
to see continued.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Author: hansbak
Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
New Revision: 816083
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
Log:
added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed
data only. After the required data is created with this
component it is possible to enter a salesorder and
quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The
'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if
there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz
document for more info or look in the file applications/
commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by
Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
