Re: [Geotools-devel] SLD Stroke Dasharray Property

I separated it out its a procedure page as the steps to sign were being lost in the details: - http://docs.geotools.org/latest/developer/procedures/contribution_license.html I also echo Andrea's words that we need to be sure you are comfortable donating your code to the OSGeo Foundation before w

Re: [Geotools-devel] GEOT-2333 (removeSchema) pull request ready

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Daniele Romagnoli < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > I have worked on GEOT-2333 [1], by integrating the available patches and > by updating some other datastore classes. > That JIRA was dealing with the already voted remove Schema proposal [2

Re: [Geotools-devel] GEOT-2333 (removeSchema) pull request ready

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: > Everything looks in order (I think we should remove sections of our > proposal template that do not get filled in). > > Going through the patch I see things like DirectoryDataStore delegating to > getDataStore(name).removeSchema(name). Does th

Re: [Geotools-devel] SLD Stroke Dasharray Property

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Andrea Aime wrote: > > Can you also point me to the actual OSGEO contribution agreement ? >> > > It's here: > http://docs.geotools.org/latest/developer/roles/contribute.html#code-contribution-license > Nuno, mind one important detail: if you don't sign the contr

[Geotools-devel] Jenkins build is back to normal : geotools-master #41

See -- November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, erro

[Geotools-devel] Build failed in Jenkins: geotools-master #40

See Changes: [andrea.aime] Improve contributor guidelines [jody.garnett] replace hack page and separate out role from procedure [jody.garnett] Clarify small / large contributions and test cases, remove invitation to contact modul

Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution agreement requirements

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > So... have I misunderstood the rule? > > I think we are struggling to express what we mean: > > 1. Small change less then one file (ignoring test cases) > > 2. Anything larger we need a contribution agreement. > > > I feel we'd need something

Re: [Geotools-devel] Making contributor gruidelines more visible

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > thanks for the improvements, I believe you're referring to this one right? > > https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/311 > > Nice to see you axed the hacking page. > > Renamed and rewrote with your words as procedures/contribute.rst > > T

Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution agreement requirements

Hi, I see in Jody's amended documentation that a contribution agreement should be required also when a patch touches more than one file, whilst I've asked contributor agreements only to people adding a new file. The thing is, the only kind of patch that one can make with a single file is fixing

Re: [Geotools-devel] Making contributor gruidelines more visible

thanks for the improvements, I believe you're referring to this one right? https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/311 Nice to see you axed the hacking page. Renamed and rewrote with your words as procedures/contribute.rst The contributor role and pull request page are still having quite a bit

Re: [Geotools-devel] Making contributor gruidelines more visible

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > There is a fair bit of overlap with this page: > - http://docs.geotools.org/latest/developer/procedures/hack.html > > I will combine the two and submit a pull request for your review. > Hi Jody, thanks for the improvements, I believe you're r

[Geotools-devel] Contribution agreement requirements

Hi, I see in Jody's amended documentation that a contribution agreement should be required also when a patch touches more than one file, whilst I've asked contributor agreements only to people adding a new file. The thing is, the only kind of patch that one can make with a single file is fixing a

Re: [Geotools-devel] Making contributor gruidelines more visible

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > There is a fair bit of overlap with this page: > - http://docs.geotools.org/latest/developer/procedures/hack.html > This page is a perfect example of wrongly setup guidelines: * Too verbose (bullet point oriented is better for the purpose) *

Re: [Geotools-devel] Making contributor gruidelines more visible

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks Andrea, the content looks fine. > > Even then I think we could lighten up that page as it serves too many > purposes right now - it is trying to document the role contributor and the > responsibility that goes along with that. It has no