If your committer has pulled together content from sources that existed
before the project was created, then it sounds like a CQ is in order.
I believe that I am duty bound to roll my eyes at the notion of 1,400
lines of coding style guidelines.
How high are you making the bar for contribution?
Wayne
On 24/03/16 12:47 PM, Mark Stoodley wrote:
Thanks, Gunnar and Wayne for the quick responses!
No poke at Markdown...it was a poke at the notion to have >1000 lines
of coding style guidelines (it's actually about 1400 lines worth :) ).
Personally, I'd have to imagine coding style guidelines as
"anticipated content". Although, technically, many of the coding style
guidelines were written before the project was initiated, one of our
project committers did some clean up and formatted as markdown. We do
have a GitHub issue opened to discuss the contribution.
I still feel like I've talked my way halfway between withdrawing and
keeping the CQ :) .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Mark Stoodley* 8200 Warden Avenue
Senior Software Developer Markham, L6G 1C7
IBM Runtime Technologies Canada
Phone: +1-905-413-5831
e-mail: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
created them - Albert Einstein
From: Wayne Beaton <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 2016/03/24 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [incubation] clarification request for when CQs are needed
Sent by: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mark.
Content authored by a project committer falls under Figure #1 of the
IP Due Diligence Process [1] which covers:
Written 100% by
Submitting Committer
or Committer on same
Project under the
supervision of the PMC
The real question, I think, is how do we define "under the supervision
of the PMC". If the content was authored after the individual became a
committer, provides functionality that is within the scope of the
project, has been developed in an open and transparent manner, and the
PMC could otherwise reasonably expect this sort of content to arrive,
then you're good. If you already have a bug open to track and discuss
the contribution, you have a slam-dunk.
A counter example might be some content that you've pulled out of an
old archive that existed before the project was created, or if the
committer disappeared for a month and arrived back with a huge
contribution that nobody expected.
Assuming that this content was authored after the developer gained
committer status, my assessment is that you don't need a CQ.
Does this help?
What's with the poke at Markdown? Did Markdown stop being cool? Did I
miss a memo?
Wayne
[1] _https://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf_
On 24/03/16 12:21 PM, Mark Stoodley wrote:
If a project committer makes a significant (say > 1000 lines of code)
contribution and the contribution is "new" content (by which I mean a
completely new file or piece of content; not modifications to existing
content in the project), does that necessarily count as an "initial
contribution" under the IP process?
The specific example we've got is the contribution of our coding
standard, which is more than 1000 lines (yeah, I know) of markdown.
Up until this point, we did not have a documented coding standard, so
technically it's "new content" but I have to admit, I felt kind of
silly opening a CQ for it (which I did anyway under the guise of
"better safe than sorry" : see
_https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11134_if you're
really interested).
It was contributed by a project committer so doesn't directly fall
under the "> 1000 lines" rule for non committers.
Do we need a CQ for such content?
Later on, one of our committers will be contributing several hundred
thousand lines of Just In Time compiler code. That code, I will
obviously treat as "initial contribution", but looking for some
guidance on where the threshold is for this kind of thing and how
pedantic I should be about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Mark Stoodley* 8200 Warden Avenue
Senior Software Developer Markham, L6G 1C7
IBM Runtime Technologies Canada
Phone: +1-905-413-5831
e-mail: [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
created them - Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
[email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
_https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation_
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation_
_EclipseCon France 2016
<http://www.eclipsecon.org/france2016>_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
EclipseCon France 2016 <http://www.eclipsecon.org/france2016>
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
