The process Andrei described is really the best way to get things going tbh since they make the review process for us ways easier.
Besides I think the real problem behind the entire github/pullreqest discussion is the problem that there's no really good jira/patch-based-review combination available at ASF. But independently this is a point which will take another bunch of years to get corrected if you follow the core lists. The entire git/svn/review/... discussion is going on there for years by now with quite some bashing... curious about the outcome :-) Kind regards, Andreas On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > @4) no need for that; once you're through the review process the apply > happens within 24 hours (different time/work zones :-)). BTW, your > pull request is almost through the pipe. Just waiting for two minor > corrections and a new patch at the jira issue to get it in :-) > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Andrei Pozolotin > <[email protected]> wrote: >> no, I have improvement on that git.html: >> >> 1) do all your work on github mirror via fork/pull >> >> 2) discuss your github pulls on ASF jira >> >> 3) when jira is accepted, do the "git format-patch origin/trunk" >> and attach patch.txt to the jira with ASF grant check box >> >> 4) now pray to your favorite ASF committer to really accept the patch >> >> :-) >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: switch to github >> From: Johan Edstrom <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Fri 17 Aug 2012 06:52:45 PM CDT >> >> It is really clear. >> http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html >> >> >> On Aug 17, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> When you are not committer on a project, and you contribute a patch, you >> have to explicitly grant your license to ASF. To do that, you just mention >> it by checking "Grant ASF" when attaching the file to the Jira. >> >> Yes, i appreciate that, but I thought we were trying to clarify whether >> Github pulls were acceptable means of providing patches. It seems that they >> are not acceptable for non-committers, so the fact that there are pull >> requests obscures the fact that those pull requests are unusable and >> therefore not statistically relevant. >> >> Having said that, it would be good to concretely clarify that Github pulls >> are not acceptable for non-committers, avoiding any interpretation that >> Github is a means by which non-committers can provide value to the project. >> It's important because it is actually very difficult in my experience to get >> patches applied, which dissuades people from contributing and makes it >> appear that nobody is interested when there may in fact be many folks >> interested in contributing but find it too unproductive to do so. These >> misinterpretations are very damaging to a project since valuable >> contributions (however small or unimportant to one group) are never made, >> and folks of a mindset similar to the person who never contributed do not in >> turn ever start using the project because these features never made it in. >> >> This is very much an anti-pattern in ASF projects, but I've found it pretty >> common as well, so please don't interpret this as me calling out Karaf in >> particular. >> >> Brian >> >>
