On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > > We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA. But all > contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we > call RAT == Release Audit Tool) and are voted on in a transparent, > open process.
RAT does not help you track to provenance of patches applied to existing files. RAT only check that a correct/compatible license is claimed, not that it is true. > > For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for > smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any > committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need > to meet a high bar to get into the code. My default posture would be > to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an > iCLA. really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ? Norbert
