Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Daniel Campbell]

On 10/28/2016 06:53 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
>>> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
>>> straightforward solution to make it global.
>>>
>>
>> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
>> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
>> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.
>>
> 
> I think that the git workflow page is probably a good place to
> consolidate developer-focused (or serious-contributor-focused)
> information.  I don't think it is a great place to point outside
> contributors.
> 
> An external contribution has a few parts:
> 1.  External contributor submits contribution.
> 2.  Somebody makes sure it is good.
> 3.  The contribution makes it into a repository official branch.
> 
> Part 3 and possibly part 2 might belong on that git workflow page.  I
> think part 1 really needs to be on a "how to contribute" page that is
> really focused on outsiders.
> 
> Of course, having an overall git workflow that is inclusive of both
> internal and external contributions where it comes to the actual
> Gentoo dev doing the commits seems like a good idea.
> 
+1

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[M. J. Everitt]

On 28/10/16 16:41, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 28/10/16 08:34, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700
>>> Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>>>
 On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> [snip]
>
> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.
>
> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
> special rules to cover them.
>
> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
> straightforward solution to make it global.
>   
 Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
 regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
 contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.

 Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea.
>>> Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by
>>> most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-).
>>>
>> That seems unproductive. What has been proposed in its stead?
>>
> I thought monsieurp had written a git flow page for users of the g-p-m
> project as they are chief users of this process. Is that only under the
> G-P-M wiki page .. might be worth doing some harmonisation there and/or
> poking the g-p-m folks?
>
> MJE
>
FYI here's the page I was thinking of ...
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_Github



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[NP-Hardass]

On 10/27/2016 05:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
>>> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but
>>> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned
>>> neither in the Specification or the Rationale.
> 
>> Why not in the rationale? It is the most straightforward way of
>> explaining why it's made optional like this.
> 
> I just don't see the need there. The sentence:
> 
> "Due to the non-obligatory nature of GitHub, they may be requested by
> the maintainers to use other contribution channels."
> 
> could be replaced by:
> 
> "Contributors using an unofficial channel may be requested by the
> maintainers to use other contribution channels."
> 
> [BTW, is there a decent way to send diffs for a Mediawiki document?]
> 
> Ulrich
> 

IIRC, you could use USE="mediawiki" on dev-vcs/git and then use git to
interface with mediawiki

-- 
NP-Hardass



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[M. J. Everitt]

On 28/10/16 08:34, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700
>> Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
 [snip]

 To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
 it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
 supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
 either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
 never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.

 I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
 are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
 special rules to cover them.

 So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
 somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
 straightforward solution to make it global.
   
>>> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
>>> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
>>> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.
>>>
>>> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea.
>> Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by
>> most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-).
>>
> That seems unproductive. What has been proposed in its stead?
>
I thought monsieurp had written a git flow page for users of the g-p-m
project as they are chief users of this process. Is that only under the
G-P-M wiki page .. might be worth doing some harmonisation there and/or
poking the g-p-m folks?

MJE



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
>> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
>> straightforward solution to make it global.
>>
>
> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.
>

I think that the git workflow page is probably a good place to
consolidate developer-focused (or serious-contributor-focused)
information.  I don't think it is a great place to point outside
contributors.

An external contribution has a few parts:
1.  External contributor submits contribution.
2.  Somebody makes sure it is good.
3.  The contribution makes it into a repository official branch.

Part 3 and possibly part 2 might belong on that git workflow page.  I
think part 1 really needs to be on a "how to contribute" page that is
really focused on outsiders.

Of course, having an overall git workflow that is inclusive of both
internal and external contributions where it comes to the actual
Gentoo dev doing the commits seems like a good idea.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:34:44 -0700
Daniel Campbell  wrote:

> On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by
> > most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-).
>
> That seems unproductive.

Welcome to Gentoo!

> What has been proposed in its stead?

But seriously, that page has too many distinct topics covered. There
was a proposal to get proper technical git policy in a GLEP. I don't
recall who was supposed to write it but it didn't happen. Then I had
a shot at it [1] but I've never finished it (anyone, feel free to take
it over and continue working on it).

[1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:66

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpByONSCctbW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Daniel Campbell]

On 10/27/2016 11:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700
> Daniel Campbell  wrote:
> 
>> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
>>> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
>>> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
>>> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
>>> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.
>>>
>>> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
>>> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
>>> special rules to cover them.
>>>
>>> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
>>> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
>>> straightforward solution to make it global.
>>>   
>>
>> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
>> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
>> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.
>>
>> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea.
> 
> Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by
> most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-).
> 
That seems unproductive. What has been proposed in its stead?

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:49:55 -0700
Daniel Campbell  wrote:

> On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> > To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
> > it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
> > supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
> > either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
> > never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.
> > 
> > I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
> > are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
> > special rules to cover them.
> > 
> > So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
> > somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
> > straightforward solution to make it global.
> >   
> 
> Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
> regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
> contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.
> 
> Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea.

Anything put on the git workflow page automatically becomes rejected by
most of the developers and users for being a whim of hasufell ;-).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpfz7fyWXOz4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Daniel Campbell]

On 10/27/2016 06:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.
> 
> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
> special rules to cover them.
> 
> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
> straightforward solution to make it global.
> 

Could it be relevant on the git workflow page? I consult that on a
regular basis (it's even in my watch list), and accepting/pushing
contributions seems like it's right in line with our expected git workflow.

Just a thought. I like where you're going with the idea.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400
> Rich Freeman  wrote:
>>
>> I do think that this is one of the areas where hasufell's concept of
>> making the 3rd-party workflow the main workflow could have helped.
>> Right now the people with commit rights mostly do things in a way that
>> it is awkward to feed 3rd-party contributions into.
>
> You are really going off-topic, you know?

No argument.  I meant it more as a tangential comment.  I wasn't
suggesting that this somehow had to be incorporated into the solution.

>
> But then, I don't really want to pursue this further. I'll leave it for
> others to decide where to put the ideas I've put into words in that
> GLEP draft.

Well, hopefully I didn't scare you off.  Ultimately though it probably
does need somebody who is really passionate about pull requests or
whatever to try to push it through.  There are certainly those of us
on these lists with interests just as perverse as that...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:22 -0400
Rich Freeman  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400
> > Rich Freeman  wrote:
> >  
> >>
> >> I think this reflects reality.  You can submit all the patches you
> >> want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not
> >> getting around to accepting them, unless they're completely inactive
> >> Gentoo-wide.  
> >
> > I disagree here. I dare say that Bugzilla is obligatory for all
> > developers (they get an account there during recruitment, after all).
> > I agree they aren't required to accept patches but if a developer
> > outright ignores all attempts of communication, you know what needs to
> > be done.
> >  
> 
> Recruit more maintainers or treeclean the package if it is a blocker?
> 
> While I don't really care for the whole passive-aggressive thing that
> some seem to enjoy, mere inaction by a volunteer in certain areas is a
> hard problem to deal with, because if they're making positive
> contributions in others it is hard to demand that they make a positive
> contribution in an area that we choose.
> 
> I get that being met with silence is highly frustrating, and I've been
> on the receiving end of it.  Still, often the best solution isn't to
> try to force somebody to do things our way, but to try to encourage
> others to join in so that we have somebody to work with who is willing
> to do it our way.
> 
> That is of course what this GLEP is all about.
> 
> >
> > To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
> > it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
> > supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
> > either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
> > never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.
> >
> > I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
> > are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
> > special rules to cover them.
> >
> > So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
> > somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
> > straightforward solution to make it global.
> >  
> 
> I think that is a completely fair question.
> 
> I wouldn't be hesitant to strongly promote a specific style,
> especially if it isn't mandatory.  Convention over configuration and
> all that.
> 
> As far as promotion goes, I think something on this page might help:
> https://gentoo.org/get-involved/contribute/
> 
> Right now that is fairly bugzilla-centric.  I think expanding it to
> offer bugzilla as one option among many could be helpful.  The current
> page doesn't even mention gentoo-proxy-maintainers.
> 
> I do think that this is one of the areas where hasufell's concept of
> making the 3rd-party workflow the main workflow could have helped.
> Right now the people with commit rights mostly do things in a way that
> it is awkward to feed 3rd-party contributions into.

You are really going off-topic, you know? If the mailing list goes
quiet for a few days, and Gentoo people start to miss some action, we
can start discussing alternate workflows. I really like the LLVM
project workflow but I doubt people are ready to take in such
a major change.

> So, maybe instead of a GLEP we need something in the style of a
> contributor and committer workflow/guide that work very tightly
> together.  Then we generate some excitement on the committer side of
> that so that people who stick their toes in the water don't have a bad
> experience, and then we promote it to the public.

That was the original idea. However, I wasn't able to figure out who
should be 'responsible' for it. The GLEP had the advantage that it's
really official and Council-approved, so a random developer won't say
'what power does team X have to say about contributions?'

But then, I don't really want to pursue this further. I'll leave it for
others to decide where to put the ideas I've put into words in that
GLEP draft.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpjhBIMvzQ7V.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400
> Rich Freeman  wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this reflects reality.  You can submit all the patches you
>> want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not
>> getting around to accepting them, unless they're completely inactive
>> Gentoo-wide.
>
> I disagree here. I dare say that Bugzilla is obligatory for all
> developers (they get an account there during recruitment, after all).
> I agree they aren't required to accept patches but if a developer
> outright ignores all attempts of communication, you know what needs to
> be done.
>

Recruit more maintainers or treeclean the package if it is a blocker?

While I don't really care for the whole passive-aggressive thing that
some seem to enjoy, mere inaction by a volunteer in certain areas is a
hard problem to deal with, because if they're making positive
contributions in others it is hard to demand that they make a positive
contribution in an area that we choose.

I get that being met with silence is highly frustrating, and I've been
on the receiving end of it.  Still, often the best solution isn't to
try to force somebody to do things our way, but to try to encourage
others to join in so that we have somebody to work with who is willing
to do it our way.

That is of course what this GLEP is all about.

>
> To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
> it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
> supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
> either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
> never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.
>
> I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
> are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
> special rules to cover them.
>
> So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
> somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
> straightforward solution to make it global.
>

I think that is a completely fair question.

I wouldn't be hesitant to strongly promote a specific style,
especially if it isn't mandatory.  Convention over configuration and
all that.

As far as promotion goes, I think something on this page might help:
https://gentoo.org/get-involved/contribute/

Right now that is fairly bugzilla-centric.  I think expanding it to
offer bugzilla as one option among many could be helpful.  The current
page doesn't even mention gentoo-proxy-maintainers.

I do think that this is one of the areas where hasufell's concept of
making the 3rd-party workflow the main workflow could have helped.
Right now the people with commit rights mostly do things in a way that
it is awkward to feed 3rd-party contributions into.

So, maybe instead of a GLEP we need something in the style of a
contributor and committer workflow/guide that work very tightly
together.  Then we generate some excitement on the committer side of
that so that people who stick their toes in the water don't have a bad
experience, and then we promote it to the public.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:07:20 -0400
Rich Freeman  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> >
> > Please review the following draft:
> >
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC
> >  
> 
> Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of
> official channels of contribution in which all project members are
> required to participate. The exact list of these channels is outside
> the scope of this specification."
> 
> i'm not actually certain that the first sentence is true.  I think the
> only "official channel" of any kind that project members are required
> to participate in is gentoo-dev-announce, and maybe gentoo-core.  I
> don't think devs are actually required to either file or look at or
> resolve bugs, for example.  Obviously it is encouraged.
>
> I'd suggest just rewording this section to something like:
> "Contributions can be accepted via any channel (whether official or
> unofficial), as long as there is at least one project member willing
> to support the particular channel and either commit or proxy the
> contributions appropriately."
>
> I think this reflects reality.  You can submit all the patches you
> want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not
> getting around to accepting them, unless they're completely inactive
> Gentoo-wide.

I disagree here. I dare say that Bugzilla is obligatory for all
developers (they get an account there during recruitment, after all).
I agree they aren't required to accept patches but if a developer
outright ignores all attempts of communication, you know what needs to
be done.

> I do think the copyright issues belong in their own policy for the most part.
> 
> Part of me wonders if this really needs to be a GLEP (a mostly
> inward-facing policy document) when it mostly documents existing
> practices and policies.  Maybe what is needed is a more outward-facing
> document, or some workflow documents?  The motivation states "Multiple
> developers have noted various suggestions on Gentoo git workflow but
> it never became an official policy," but I don't see any kind of
> workflow really being solidified here either.
> 
> I guess my question on that front is what is the actual gap today, and
> does this GLEP close it, and if not, is there either a better way, or
> can we make the GLEP stronger to actually close the gap?  Just because
> a workflow is optional doesn't mean that we can't standardize how it
> is done.

To be honest, after writing it all down, I started to get the feeling
it isn't necessary after all. The initial idea (and what motivation was
supposed to mean) was that all previous attempts failed because they
either tried to be too specific, force too many style rules or just
never got necessary 'global' to reach all affected parties.

I'd dare say this GLEP ended up confirming 'third party contributions'
are not that special, we don't need special teams to handle them or
special rules to cover them.

So yes, it would probably be enough to put such a simple statement
somewhere. The problem is: where? ;-) GLEP seemed like a
straightforward solution to make it global.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpQYPmfV4SE7.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
>
> Please review the following draft:
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC
>

Regarding this paragraph: "Gentoo project provides a specific set of
official channels of contribution in which all project members are
required to participate. The exact list of these channels is outside
the scope of this specification."

i'm not actually certain that the first sentence is true.  I think the
only "official channel" of any kind that project members are required
to participate in is gentoo-dev-announce, and maybe gentoo-core.  I
don't think devs are actually required to either file or look at or
resolve bugs, for example.  Obviously it is encouraged.

I'd suggest just rewording this section to something like:
"Contributions can be accepted via any channel (whether official or
unofficial), as long as there is at least one project member willing
to support the particular channel and either commit or proxy the
contributions appropriately."

I think this reflects reality.  You can submit all the patches you
want via bugzilla but it isn't like we punish developers for not
getting around to accepting them, unless they're completely inactive
Gentoo-wide.

I do think the copyright issues belong in their own policy for the most part.

Part of me wonders if this really needs to be a GLEP (a mostly
inward-facing policy document) when it mostly documents existing
practices and policies.  Maybe what is needed is a more outward-facing
document, or some workflow documents?  The motivation states "Multiple
developers have noted various suggestions on Gentoo git workflow but
it never became an official policy," but I don't see any kind of
workflow really being solidified here either.

I guess my question on that front is what is the actual gap today, and
does this GLEP close it, and if not, is there either a better way, or
can we make the GLEP stronger to actually close the gap?  Just because
a workflow is optional doesn't mean that we can't standardize how it
is done.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:00:35 +0200
Ulrich Mueller  wrote:

> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:  
> 
> >> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but
> >> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned
> >> neither in the Specification or the Rationale.  
> 
> > Why not in the rationale? It is the most straightforward way of
> > explaining why it's made optional like this.  
> 
> I just don't see the need there. The sentence:
> 
> "Due to the non-obligatory nature of GitHub, they may be requested by
> the maintainers to use other contribution channels."
> 
> could be replaced by:
> 
> "Contributors using an unofficial channel may be requested by the
> maintainers to use other contribution channels."

Used a wording closer to the current one but done.

> [BTW, is there a decent way to send diffs for a Mediawiki document?]

I seriously doubt there's a decent way to do anything on MediaWiki.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpaOVXlrsntE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:

>> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but
>> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned
>> neither in the Specification or the Rationale.

> Why not in the rationale? It is the most straightforward way of
> explaining why it's made optional like this.

I just don't see the need there. The sentence:

"Due to the non-obligatory nature of GitHub, they may be requested by
the maintainers to use other contribution channels."

could be replaced by:

"Contributors using an unofficial channel may be requested by the
maintainers to use other contribution channels."

[BTW, is there a decent way to send diffs for a Mediawiki document?]

Ulrich


pgp_Kd3fwiTnb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:55:13 +0200
Ulrich Mueller  wrote:

> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:  
> 
> > I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current
> > practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's
> > meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules
> > are generic enough to cover other contribution media -- patches
> > attached to bugs, etc.  
> 
> > Please review the following draft:  
> 
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC  
> 
> I am strictly opposed to making github or pull requests part of our
> official workflow or policy.
> 
> So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but
> not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned
> neither in the Specification or the Rationale.

Why not in the rationale? It is the most straightforward way of
explaining why it's made optional like this.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpBPAllo2cji.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Michał Górny wrote:

> I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current
> practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's
> meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules
> are generic enough to cover other contribution media -- patches
> attached to bugs, etc.

> Please review the following draft:

> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC

I am strictly opposed to making github or pull requests part of our
official workflow or policy.

So, it is o.k. if you mention github in the Motivation section (but
not five times!). However, github or pull requests should be mentioned
neither in the Specification or the Rationale.

Ulrich


pgpm9_1mkFn8z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] GLEP RFC: Third-party contributions

[Michał Górny]

Hi, everyone.

I've started writing a GLEP to formalize and confirm the current
practices for committing third-party contributions into Gentoo. It's
meant mostly to clear the rules for pull requests. However, the rules
are generic enough to cover other contribution media -- patches
attached to bugs, etc.

Please review the following draft:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:TPC

I'm wondering about adding the copyright problems there (DCO etc.).
However, if those are supposed to affect developers as well, then their
place is probably in a separate policy.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpatPa6ZwiJj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature