On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On 7/28/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Norman Maurer ha scritto: >>>> >>>> Hi Stefano, >>>> >>>> I think a jira issue is the "safest" ;-) >>> >>> I know it's safer, but before writing to him I'd like to understand if >>> in the case he doesn't want to create a JIRA account we have to reject >>> this patch or there is a way to accept it anyway. >> >> JIRA is a convenience not a necessity. AL2.0 covers us ok but it's >> best to be polite and ask. Some public record is a good idea in the >> event of a dispute. >> Robert > > That's what I thought. So in this case (we already solved it because he > created a JIRA, and anyway we already had that patch in trunk from Norman, > so there was no need for a contribution at all), I told the user that he > could have contributed his patch if he wanted us to include it in the next > release and he posted the snippet in reply to this message: this would have > been enough as a "public record" for such a small contribution, right?
in the end, it's a judgement call with ethical and legal dimensions. FWIW from the information you've provided, i would have made the same call as you. it's clearest to have a JIRA. in the old days, many (or indeed most) patches were contributed via the mailing lists. so yes, that's good enough but experience has taught that JIRA with active tickbox is a much clearer. digging out information about contributions from mailing lists and commit records takes time and is difficult. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
