On Sunday 04 February 2007 22:42, robert burrell donkin wrote:
* donations (whether covered by a CLA, JIRA opt in or a software grant)
Shouldn't we avoid the word donation?? Code is not donated to ASF, it is
licensed. Time is perhaps donated to ASF, but not IP...
Cheers
Niclas
On 2/5/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 February 2007 22:42, robert burrell donkin wrote:
* donations (whether covered by a CLA, JIRA opt in or a software grant)
Shouldn't we avoid the word donation?? Code is not donated to ASF, it is
licensed. Time is perhaps donated
On 2/4/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Please give me a case where back channel commits are permitted under
the proposed commit policy?
the wording does not make clear the intention of the rule
for example, i post: feature X is totally
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 2/5/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 February 2007 22:42, robert burrell donkin wrote:
* donations (whether covered by a CLA, JIRA opt in or a software grant)
Shouldn't we avoid the word donation?? Code is not donated to ASF,
it is
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/5/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 February 2007 22:42, robert burrell donkin wrote:
* donations (whether covered by a CLA, JIRA opt in or a software
grant)
Shouldn't we avoid the word donation?? Code is not donated
On 2/5/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 February 2007 22:42, robert burrell donkin wrote:
* donations (whether covered by a CLA, JIRA opt in or a software grant)
Shouldn't we avoid the word donation?? Code is not donated to ASF, it is
licensed. Time is perhaps donated
On 2/5/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe people are donating a copyright to the code. A license
Well, the problem with that phrasing is that most people would wrongly
assume 'donating a copyright' means 'donating the copyright ownership'
- it's way too subtle. We all know that
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 2/3/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they aren't a committer yet, they post a patch (jira or list) just like
every other wannabe future committer. When the volume and quality are
reasonable,
On 2/4/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 2/3/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they aren't a committer yet, they post a patch (jira or list) just like
every other wannabe future
robert burrell donkin wrote:
please reread carefully the actual comment
Gotcha - more of what I agreed with deeper into your post.
In the first case, the reason is that patches should be publicly offered and
not privately back-channeled, iCLA or no. We don't have svnmongers here.
Future
On 2/4/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
snip
In the first case, the reason is that patches should be publicly offered and
not privately back-channeled, iCLA or no. We don't have svnmongers here.
Future committers should participate publicly.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Please give me a case where back channel commits are permitted under
the proposed commit policy?
the wording does not make clear the intention of the rule
for example, i post: feature X is totally fantastic and i've attached
some code that nearly implements
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Margaris wrote:
-1 from me. (If I even have a vote...)
Although only ASF members/Incubator PMC votes are 'counted', yes everyone here
has a voice - we do appreciate everyone's input. So should every podling.
+1
- robert
+1 to Bill's suggestion of having an ASF Commit Policy - but there
are many points in this thread that would be good to be incorporated
in his original suggestion.
Niall
On 2/3/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they aren't a
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I'm proposing the following policy become explicit across the incubator;..
I'm +1 on the idea, with a suggestion below.
...committers may commit code they personally authored,
or with proper attribution, commit patches posted
I am +1 on this and the main reason for this is that people that become
committers through the
incubator don't necessarily have any experience with apache projects and how
issues like this are
normally handled. As a side effect it gives us the option to link to this
policy in case something
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I'm proposing the following policy become explicit across the
incubator;..
I'm +1 on the idea, with a suggestion below.
...committers may commit code they personally authored,
or with proper
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I'm proposing the following policy become explicit across the
incubator;..
I'm +1 on the idea, with a suggestion below.
...committers may commit code they personally authored,
or with proper
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
I'd add clarification about 'committing third party code' with reference
to libraries. I should be able to commit the latest log4j jar without
having to do any jira nuisance. This is about committing the code itself
as a contribution, not as a
it addesses it?
It is very difficult for me to see what the goal here is and if that
goal is being achieved.
James Margaris
-Original Message-
From: Upayavira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:35 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Incubating
Ted Husted wrote:
I think the real issue here is off-list discussions.
Third is, yes. The other two thirds...
So long as the commit is above-board, properly documentation in the
Subversion log, and backed by a ICLA when applicable, I don't see what
difference posting it to JIRA first
I believe many projects practice this policy, although it's unwritten,
and perhaps there are others who don't (and probably deserve some scrutiny
to determine if it's helpful or harmful).
I'm proposing the following policy become explicit across the incubator;
Where the project policy permits
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2/1/2007 4:36 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [Vote] Incubating Project Policy
I believe many projects practice this policy, although it's unwritten,
and perhaps there are others who don't (and probably deserve some scrutiny
to determine if it's helpful or harmful
James Margaris wrote:
-1 from me. (If I even have a vote...)
Although only ASF members/Incubator PMC votes are 'counted', yes everyone here
has a voice - we do appreciate everyone's input. So should every podling.
If I want to check in some third party code with a proper license, I don't
24 matches
Mail list logo
