Keep in mind that filing the jira, attaching the patch file, etc... are all demonstrating intent of the author to contribute the changes under the apache license conditions. Jira is part of IP tracking. If you file the jira for them we lose that. We used to (olden days) have a specific checkbox in jira that required the patch author to explicitly specify intent, but at some point that was dropped.
So don't file the jira for someone else. Let them create the jira, attach the patch, etc... - regardless they are going to need to interact with jira in order to work through the feedback, discussions, etc... Patrick On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair enough. I do agree that multiple sources of truth is not great (even > if avoiding it means some copy/pasta > between PRs and JIRAs). > > For now, I guess we can just ask people to open JIRAs, or file them for the > casual contributors. > > Thanks all! > > > -rgs > > > > On 8 June 2015 at 09:27, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agree with the single record of truth. All changes currently go >> through Jira. It's part of the process and documented in the "how to >> contribute" page: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute >> >> The git mirror at github is just that, a mirror of svn and meant to be >> a convenience. We don't use the PR process there, etc... >> >> Patrick >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > FWIW, the JIRA requirement is typical of Apache projects. Most projects >> > have a strong preference that this single record of truth lies on Apache >> > infrastructure, hence the use of Apache JIRA and Apache's hosted git >> > rather than GitHub. The idea is that a full permanent record of all >> > project decisions resides in Apache infrastructure, maintained by the >> ASF, >> > and not subject to external forces like a company folding and needing to >> > shut down its site. (I don't have any reason to suspect this of GitHub, >> > but the point is that it's something outside of ASF control.) >> > >> > I don't know for sure that this is a required policy, but I wanted to >> > point out that it's consistent with the Apache projects I've seen. >> > >> > --Chris Nauroth >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 6/8/15, 5:19 AM, "Camille Fournier" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >>I personally don't think that having a single record of truth and asking >> >>people to use that record is asking too much. I'm not in favor at all of >> >>removing the requirement for tickets to track work. Perhaps if we were >> >>entirely in git hub it would be one thing but we aren't. >> >> >> >>C >> >>On Jun 8, 2015 12:42 AM, "Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés" <[email protected]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Camille, >> >>> >> >>> On 7 June 2015 at 14:59, Camille Fournier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > I personally think all PRs should have an associated JIRA. This is >> >>>also >> >>> the >> >>> > requirement I have on my engineering team at work, and it seems >> >>>totally >> >>> > reasonable to me. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for sharing! Is it with a git pull request work flow though? >> Take >> >>> this ‹ small albeit important ‹ >> >>> pull request for instance: >> >>> >> >>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/32 >> >>> >> >>> I think it would be nice to avoid asking casual contributors to file >> >>>JIRAs >> >>> for those small patches so >> >>> the impedance for contributing is reduced. >> >>> >> >>> Also, having the committer do the paperwork sounds like too much red >> >>>tape >> >>> given that >> >>> the pull request is already pretty well documented. I at least would be >> >>> very happy >> >>> if we could just push those patches by referencing the PR in the >> >>>comment, >> >>> instead of a JIRA. >> >>> >> >>> I also suspect that eventually we might end up moving to git, so I >> think >> >>> there is value in allowing >> >>> pull requests as a submission mechanism (for some cases?), since it'll >> >>>make >> >>> the eventual transition >> >>> smoother and with less unknowns. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -rgs >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > C >> >>> > >> >>> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés < >> >>> > [email protected]> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > > Heya, >> >>> > > >> >>> > > there's an increasing number of pull requests (PRs) coming through >> >>> github >> >>> > > (great! more contributions!). How do we deal with them? Do we need >> >>>to >> >>> > file >> >>> > > a corresponding JIRA before we merge them or can we just reference >> >>>the >> >>> > PR? >> >>> > > >> >>> > > I rather not tax the contributors with having to file the JIRA, but >> >>> > taxing >> >>> > > the committer is also not great.. Thoughts? >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > -rgs >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> > >>
