OIC, yes, it's all right there!  Maybe you can point out the parts we were 
talking about, where the "Grant ASF" button is and all.

That doc assumes someone is a committer.  Thanks for the input though.

On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:52 AM, Johan Edstrom <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 

Reply via email to