Re: The definition of "bulk"

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

Leo Simons wrote:
> Gang,
> 
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:30:53PM +0100, Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
>>>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>>>> Daniel,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just contributed a JIRA,
>>>>>  http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471
>>>>> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi.  (The jsr14
>>>>> version.  Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches
>>>>> for the tests next.)
>>>>    We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite,
>>>> I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473
>>>> (I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-)
>>>> so please take that test suite.
>>> Thanks for the heads-up.  I just saw the JIRA messages.  (I notice it
>>> includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution.  But
>>> I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution
>>> rather than a new contribution?  That is we don't need to wait for
>>> another vote.)
>> I disagree -- i think the simplest thing would be for Daniel to submit
>> the delta rather than another version of the original contribution.
> 
> A derivative work of something under the apache license is not automatically
> under the apache license. Similarly, a derivative work to which multiple
> people contributed is still a bulk contribution.
> 
> Our policy currently says
> 
>   "Any software or other contribution that was not created explicitly for
>    Apache Harmony *in* the Apache Harmony project is considered to be a
>    'Bulk Contribution'. "
> 
> the emphasis on *in* is there for a reason. What we identify here (among other
> things) is a mode of operation where various parties do their development work
> in isolation and then every now and then submit some patches.
> 
> When I see a sentence like "We've been working on [foo], I've contributed
> that [here]", to me that makes it clear that what is under discussion is a
> Bulk Contribution (work by multiple parties contributed by a single party), and
> the minimum amount of paperwork to me seems to be the bulk contribution
> checklist (if all the previously sent-in paperwork such as CLAs and grants and
> ACQs can be considered applicable to the new contribution).

I understand. That's why I asked Daniel to resubmit just the delta to
the original contribution so it can be accepted as work within the project.

> The only way to avoid this kind of paperwork is to have all the individuals
> that work on this stuff interact within harmony directly so that it is
> unambigous that any identifiable set of work was produced *here*. Put another
> way: contributors to the ASF are individuals, not companies, when there's doubt,
> do the paperwork.

Agreed.  Small frequent updates to the code are good.

> Now, we could of course start a discussion on whether we should change our
> policies, but until we do, lets please all follow it very very carefully.

I don't think we need to go there right now.

> Or did I misunderstand something? In that case, can someone help me get
> un-confused?

Daniel has restructured code and made some enhancements.  He submitted
the 'results' of that work rather than the description/patches, so we
asked him to resubmit.  I think that works.

Regards,
Tim

-- 

Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: The definition of "bulk"

[Alan Adamson <ad...@ca.ibm.com>]

I hope you are at JavaOne.  Otherwise the time on this note is just silly.

Alan Adamson          905-413-5933  Tieline 969-5933   FAX: 905-413-4854
Java Performance      Internet: adamson@ca.ibm.com
Java Technology Centre
IBM Toronto Lab