You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jclouds.apache.org by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> on 2013/06/18 14:54:23 UTC
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
> == Contributor license agreement ==
>
> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions and patches attached to a [[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are assumed to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may not require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in place.
>
A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason
the project wishes to require them?
--David
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
At one point we had active committers from both the UK and Sweden.
On Jun 20, 2013 10:00 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right! It seems that I'm one of the very few people in Europe... Covering
> the most boring hours in the irc channel! :)
> El 20/06/2013 15:54, "Everett Toews" <ev...@rackspace.com>
> escribió:
>
> > Also, don't forget that Ignasi is in a very different timezone from most
> > of us.
> >
> > You're in Barcelona, right Ignasi?
> >
> > Everett
> >
> > On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:00 AM, Ignasi wrote:
> >
> > > Matt, I haven't had time until today to address your comments (and it's
> > > been only around a day, I didn't intend to ignore them :)).
> > >
> > > Thanks for taking care of updating the guide in the meanwhile!
> > > El 20/06/2013 07:09, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net>
> escribió:
> > >
> > >> Yeah, looks like moinmoin was case sensitive on my login. Pinged
> > >> silkysun@who was up and she managed to fix it. I foolishly didn't
> > >> follow
> > >> instructions when I setup my login, I guess I'll need to find out how
> to
> > >> fix that at some point.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I'm able to edit it, fwiw.
> > >>>
> > >>> A.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> mattstep@apache.org
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Ignasi,
> > >>>> This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please
> make
> > >> it
> > >>>> writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
> > >>>> responding to my feedback.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Matt
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> > >> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs
> for
> > >>>>> contributor/committer docs.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
> > >>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
> > >>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> > >>> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the
> > >> same
> > >>>>>> process as contributors for making changes.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> > >>> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if
> I'm
> > >>>>>>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the
> > >> bottom.
> > >>>> I'd
> > >>>>>>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not
> > >>> contributing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <
> ignasi.barrera@gmail.com
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave
> the
> > >>>>>>>> squash as an optional step.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to
> > >> have
> > >>>>>>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very
> end
> > >> of
> > >>>>>>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document
> for
> > >>>>>>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is
> good
> > >>>>>>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
> > >>>>>>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred
> > >>> option
> > >>>>>>>> :)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but
> > >> agree
> > >>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>> rebasing to master.
> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <
> > >> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we
> > >>> want
> > >>>>>>>> a page
> > >>>>>>>>>> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just
> > >> do
> > >>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>> The rest is for another audience.
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I understood that from an email thread where this was
> > >> discussed.
> > >>>> It
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link
> here,
> > >>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>>> your recommendations were:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
> > >>>>>>>> consider
> > >>>>>>>>>>> implicit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he
> > >>>> provide.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
> > >>>>>>>> figures
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing
> > >>>> list,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the
> > >> ASL
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated
> > >>> otherwise.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't
> > >>> rise
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> this level in my experience."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>> CLA.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for checking!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> == Contributor license agreement ==
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
> > >>>>>>>> contributions
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and patches attached to a [[
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue
> > >> are
> > >>>>>>>> assumed
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and
> > >> changes
> > >>>> may
> > >>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to
> > >> have
> > >>> it
> > >>>>>>>> in place.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is
> > >> there
> > >>> a
> > >>>>>>>> reason
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the project wishes to require them?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --David
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.
Right! It seems that I'm one of the very few people in Europe... Covering
the most boring hours in the irc channel! :)
El 20/06/2013 15:54, "Everett Toews" <ev...@rackspace.com> escribió:
> Also, don't forget that Ignasi is in a very different timezone from most
> of us.
>
> You're in Barcelona, right Ignasi?
>
> Everett
>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:00 AM, Ignasi wrote:
>
> > Matt, I haven't had time until today to address your comments (and it's
> > been only around a day, I didn't intend to ignore them :)).
> >
> > Thanks for taking care of updating the guide in the meanwhile!
> > El 20/06/2013 07:09, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net> escribió:
> >
> >> Yeah, looks like moinmoin was case sensitive on my login. Pinged
> >> silkysun@who was up and she managed to fix it. I foolishly didn't
> >> follow
> >> instructions when I setup my login, I guess I'll need to find out how to
> >> fix that at some point.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm able to edit it, fwiw.
> >>>
> >>> A.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@apache.org
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ignasi,
> >>>> This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please make
> >> it
> >>>> writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
> >>>> responding to my feedback.
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> >> mattstep@mattstep.net
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
> >>>>> contributor/committer docs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
> >>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
> >>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> >>> mattstep@mattstep.net
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the
> >> same
> >>>>>> process as contributors for making changes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> >>> mattstep@mattstep.net
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
> >>>>>>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the
> >> bottom.
> >>>> I'd
> >>>>>>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not
> >>> contributing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ignasi.barrera@gmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
> >>>>>>>> squash as an optional step.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to
> >> have
> >>>>>>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end
> >> of
> >>>>>>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
> >>>>>>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
> >>>>>>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
> >>>>>>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred
> >>> option
> >>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but
> >> agree
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> rebasing to master.
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <
> >> mattstep@mattstep.net
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we
> >>> want
> >>>>>>>> a page
> >>>>>>>>>> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just
> >> do
> >>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>> The rest is for another audience.
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I understood that from an email thread where this was
> >> discussed.
> >>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here,
> >>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>> your recommendations were:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
> >>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>>>>> implicit
> >>>>>>>>>>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he
> >>>> provide.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
> >>>>>>>> figures
> >>>>>>>>>>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing
> >>>> list,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the
> >> ASL
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated
> >>> otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't
> >>> rise
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> this level in my experience."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> CLA.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for checking!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> == Contributor license agreement ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
> >>>>>>>> contributions
> >>>>>>>>>>> and patches attached to a [[
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue
> >> are
> >>>>>>>> assumed
> >>>>>>>>>>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and
> >> changes
> >>>> may
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to
> >> have
> >>> it
> >>>>>>>> in place.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is
> >> there
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the project wishes to require them?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --David
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Everett Toews <ev...@RACKSPACE.COM>.
Also, don't forget that Ignasi is in a very different timezone from most of us.
You're in Barcelona, right Ignasi?
Everett
On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:00 AM, Ignasi wrote:
> Matt, I haven't had time until today to address your comments (and it's
> been only around a day, I didn't intend to ignore them :)).
>
> Thanks for taking care of updating the guide in the meanwhile!
> El 20/06/2013 07:09, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net> escribió:
>
>> Yeah, looks like moinmoin was case sensitive on my login. Pinged
>> silkysun@who was up and she managed to fix it. I foolishly didn't
>> follow
>> instructions when I setup my login, I guess I'll need to find out how to
>> fix that at some point.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm able to edit it, fwiw.
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@apache.org
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ignasi,
>>>> This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please make
>> it
>>>> writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
>>>> responding to my feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <
>> mattstep@mattstep.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
>>>>> contributor/committer docs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
>>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
>>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <
>>> mattstep@mattstep.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the
>> same
>>>>>> process as contributors for making changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <
>>> mattstep@mattstep.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
>>>>>>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the
>> bottom.
>>>> I'd
>>>>>>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not
>>> contributing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ignasi.barrera@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
>>>>>>>> squash as an optional step.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to
>> have
>>>>>>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end
>> of
>>>>>>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
>>>>>>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
>>>>>>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
>>>>>>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred
>>> option
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but
>> agree
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> rebasing to master.
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <
>> mattstep@mattstep.net
>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we
>>> want
>>>>>>>> a page
>>>>>>>>>> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just
>> do
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>> The rest is for another audience.
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understood that from an email thread where this was
>> discussed.
>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here,
>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> your recommendations were:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>> implicit
>>>>>>>>>>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he
>>>> provide.
>>>>>>>>>>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
>>>>>>>> figures
>>>>>>>>>>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing
>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the
>> ASL
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated
>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't
>>> rise
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> this level in my experience."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign
>> the
>>>>>>>> CLA.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for checking!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> == Contributor license agreement ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
>>>>>>>> contributions
>>>>>>>>>>> and patches attached to a [[
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue
>> are
>>>>>>>> assumed
>>>>>>>>>>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and
>> changes
>>>> may
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to
>> have
>>> it
>>>>>>>> in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is
>> there
>>> a
>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>> the project wishes to require them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.
Matt, I haven't had time until today to address your comments (and it's
been only around a day, I didn't intend to ignore them :)).
Thanks for taking care of updating the guide in the meanwhile!
El 20/06/2013 07:09, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net> escribió:
> Yeah, looks like moinmoin was case sensitive on my login. Pinged
> silkysun@who was up and she managed to fix it. I foolishly didn't
> follow
> instructions when I setup my login, I guess I'll need to find out how to
> fix that at some point.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I'm able to edit it, fwiw.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@apache.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Ignasi,
> > > This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please make
> it
> > > writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
> > > responding to my feedback.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
> > > > contributor/committer docs.
> > > >
> > > > Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
> > > > https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
> > > > https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> > mattstep@mattstep.net
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the
> same
> > > >> process as contributors for making changes.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> > mattstep@mattstep.net
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
> > > >>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the
> bottom.
> > > I'd
> > > >>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not
> > contributing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ignasi.barrera@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
> > > >>>> squash as an optional step.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to
> have
> > > >>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end
> of
> > > >>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
> > > >>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
> > > >>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
> > > >>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred
> > option
> > > >>>> :)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but
> agree
> > > >>>> with
> > > >>>> > rebasing to master.
> > > >>>> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <
> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we
> > want
> > > >>>> a page
> > > >>>> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just
> do
> > > >>>> that.
> > > >>>> >> The rest is for another audience.
> > > >>>> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was
> discussed.
> > > It
> > > >>>> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here,
> > but
> > > >>>> >>> your recommendations were:
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
> > > >>>> consider
> > > >>>> >>> implicit
> > > >>>> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he
> > > provide.
> > > >>>> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
> > > >>>> figures
> > > >>>> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing
> > > list,
> > > >>>> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the
> ASL
> > > to
> > > >>>> be
> > > >>>> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated
> > otherwise.
> > > >>>> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't
> > rise
> > > to
> > > >>>> >>> this level in my experience."
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign
> the
> > > >>>> CLA.
> > > >>>> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> Thanks for checking!
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> > > >>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
> > > >>>> contributions
> > > >>>> >>> and patches attached to a [[
> > > >>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue
> are
> > > >>>> assumed
> > > >>>> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and
> changes
> > > may
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to
> have
> > it
> > > >>>> in place.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is
> there
> > a
> > > >>>> reason
> > > >>>> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > --David
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
Yeah, looks like moinmoin was case sensitive on my login. Pinged
silkysun@who was up and she managed to fix it. I foolishly didn't
follow
instructions when I setup my login, I guess I'll need to find out how to
fix that at some point.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm able to edit it, fwiw.
>
> A.
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Ignasi,
> > This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please make it
> > writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
> > responding to my feedback.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
> > > contributor/committer docs.
> > >
> > > Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
> > > https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
> > > https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the same
> > >> process as contributors for making changes.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <
> mattstep@mattstep.net
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
> > >>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom.
> > I'd
> > >>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not
> contributing.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ignasi.barrera@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
> > >>>> squash as an optional step.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
> > >>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
> > >>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
> > >>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
> > >>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
> > >>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred
> option
> > >>>> :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
> wrote:
> > >>>> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree
> > >>>> with
> > >>>> > rebasing to master.
> > >>>> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <mattstep@mattstep.net
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we
> want
> > >>>> a page
> > >>>> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do
> > >>>> that.
> > >>>> >> The rest is for another audience.
> > >>>> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed.
> > It
> > >>>> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here,
> but
> > >>>> >>> your recommendations were:
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
> > >>>> consider
> > >>>> >>> implicit
> > >>>> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he
> > provide.
> > >>>> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
> > >>>> figures
> > >>>> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing
> > list,
> > >>>> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL
> > to
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated
> otherwise.
> > >>>> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't
> rise
> > to
> > >>>> >>> this level in my experience."
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the
> > >>>> CLA.
> > >>>> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>> Thanks for checking!
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >>>> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
> > >>>> >>> >>
> > >>>> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> > >>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
> > >>>> contributions
> > >>>> >>> and patches attached to a [[
> > >>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are
> > >>>> assumed
> > >>>> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes
> > may
> > >>>> not
> > >>>> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have
> it
> > >>>> in place.
> > >>>> >>> >>
> > >>>> >>> >
> > >>>> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there
> a
> > >>>> reason
> > >>>> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
> > >>>> >>> >
> > >>>> >>> > --David
> > >>>> >>>
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
I'm able to edit it, fwiw.
A.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@apache.org>wrote:
> Ignasi,
> This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please make it
> writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
> responding to my feedback.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@mattstep.net
> >wrote:
>
> > Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
> > contributor/committer docs.
> >
> > Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
> > https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
> > https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@mattstep.net
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the same
> >> process as contributors for making changes.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <mattstep@mattstep.net
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
> >>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom.
> I'd
> >>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not contributing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ignasi.barrera@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
> >>>>
> >>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
> >>>> squash as an optional step.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
> >>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
> >>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
> >>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
> >>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
> >>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option
> >>>> :)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
> >>>> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree
> >>>> with
> >>>> > rebasing to master.
> >>>> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want
> >>>> a page
> >>>> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do
> >>>> that.
> >>>> >> The rest is for another audience.
> >>>> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed.
> It
> >>>> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
> >>>> >>> your recommendations were:
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
> >>>> consider
> >>>> >>> implicit
> >>>> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he
> provide.
> >>>> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
> >>>> figures
> >>>> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing
> list,
> >>>> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL
> to
> >>>> be
> >>>> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> >>>> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise
> to
> >>>> >>> this level in my experience."
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the
> >>>> CLA.
> >>>> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> Thanks for checking!
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
> >>>> >>> >>
> >>>> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> >>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
> >>>> contributions
> >>>> >>> and patches attached to a [[
> >>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are
> >>>> assumed
> >>>> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes
> may
> >>>> not
> >>>> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it
> >>>> in place.
> >>>> >>> >>
> >>>> >>> >
> >>>> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a
> >>>> reason
> >>>> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
> >>>> >>> >
> >>>> >>> > --David
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@apache.org>.
Ignasi,
This page you created is immutable and I cannot edit it. Please make it
writeable to admins. I would like to clean it up since you're not
responding to my feedback.
Matt
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
> Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
> contributor/committer docs.
>
> Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
> https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
> https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
>
>> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the same
>> process as contributors for making changes.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
>>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom. I'd
>>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not contributing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
>>>>
>>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
>>>> squash as an optional step.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
>>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
>>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
>>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
>>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
>>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
>>>> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree
>>>> with
>>>> > rebasing to master.
>>>> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want
>>>> a page
>>>> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do
>>>> that.
>>>> >> The rest is for another audience.
>>>> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
>>>> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
>>>> >>> your recommendations were:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I
>>>> consider
>>>> >>> implicit
>>>> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
>>>> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me
>>>> figures
>>>> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
>>>> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to
>>>> be
>>>> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>>>> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
>>>> >>> this level in my experience."
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the
>>>> CLA.
>>>> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks for checking!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
>>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
>>>> contributions
>>>> >>> and patches attached to a [[
>>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are
>>>> assumed
>>>> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may
>>>> not
>>>> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it
>>>> in place.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a
>>>> reason
>>>> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > --David
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
Sigh, it's so irritating that we're always writing "Git 101" docs for
contributor/committer docs.
Lets link to these instead, they're way more instructive :
https://help.github.com/articles/set-up-git
https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
> Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the same
> process as contributors for making changes.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
>
>> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm
>> looking for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom. I'd
>> rather just search for committer guide or something, not contributing.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
>>>
>>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
>>> squash as an optional step.
>>>
>>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
>>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
>>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
>>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
>>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
>>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option
>>> :)
>>>
>>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
>>> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree with
>>> > rebasing to master.
>>> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a
>>> page
>>> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do
>>> that.
>>> >> The rest is for another audience.
>>> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
>>> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
>>> >>> your recommendations were:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider
>>> >>> implicit
>>> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
>>> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
>>> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
>>> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to
>>> be
>>> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>>> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
>>> >>> this level in my experience."
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
>>> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for checking!
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All
>>> contributions
>>> >>> and patches attached to a [[
>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are
>>> assumed
>>> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may
>>> not
>>> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it
>>> in place.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a
>>> reason
>>> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > --David
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
Also, since we're Commit Then Review, committers don't follow the same
process as contributors for making changes.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
> I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm looking
> for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom. I'd rather
> just search for committer guide or something, not contributing.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
>>
>> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
>> squash as an optional step.
>>
>> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
>> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
>> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
>> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
>> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
>> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option
>> :)
>>
>> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
>> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree with
>> > rebasing to master.
>> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a
>> page
>> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that.
>> >> The rest is for another audience.
>> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
>> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
>> >>> your recommendations were:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider
>> >>> implicit
>> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
>> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
>> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>> >>>
>> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
>> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be
>> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
>> >>> this level in my experience."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
>> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for checking!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions
>> >>> and patches attached to a [[
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are
>> assumed
>> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may
>> not
>> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in
>> place.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a
>> reason
>> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --David
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
I don't see how it's beneficial to the audience though, and if I'm looking
for that as a committer, I'd rather not scroll to the bottom. I'd rather
just search for committer guide or something, not contributing.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing Matt!
>
> Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
> squash as an optional step.
>
> Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
> just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
> the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
> them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
> that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
> Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option
> :)
>
> On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
> > I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree with
> > rebasing to master.
> > On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a
> page
> >> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that.
> >> The rest is for another audience.
> >> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
> >>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
> >>> your recommendations were:
> >>>
> >>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider
> >>> implicit
> >>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
> >>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
> >>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
> >>>
> >>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
> >>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be
> >>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> >>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
> >>> this level in my experience."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
> >>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for checking!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions
> >>> and patches attached to a [[
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are assumed
> >>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may not
> >>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in
> place.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a
> reason
> >>> > the project wishes to require them?
> >>> >
> >>> > --David
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for reviewing Matt!
Agree. Modified the text to only require the rebase but leave the
squash as an optional step.
Regarding the commiters stuff, I personally think it is good to have
just one guide. Commiters specific steps are only at the very end of
the document, and I see no point in having a separate document for
them. I also like the idea of transparency, and I think it is good
that people know how we are going to merge their contributions.
Anyway, this is something we can discuss and take the preferred option
:)
On 18 June 2013 17:03, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree with
> rebasing to master.
> On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
>
>> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a page
>> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that.
>> The rest is for another audience.
>> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
>>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
>>> your recommendations were:
>>>
>>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider
>>> implicit
>>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
>>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
>>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>>>
>>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
>>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be
>>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
>>> this level in my experience."
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
>>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>>>
>>> Thanks for checking!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
>>> >>
>>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions
>>> and patches attached to a [[
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are assumed
>>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may not
>>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in place.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason
>>> > the project wishes to require them?
>>> >
>>> > --David
>>>
>>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
I wouldn't include that all commits need to be squashed, but agree with
rebasing to master.
On Jun 18, 2013 8:00 AM, "Matt Stephenson" <ma...@mattstep.net> wrote:
> I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a page
> that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that.
> The rest is for another audience.
> On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
>> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
>> your recommendations were:
>>
>> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider
>> implicit
>> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
>> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
>> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>>
>> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
>> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be
>> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
>> this level in my experience."
>>
>>
>> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
>> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>>
>> Thanks for checking!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
>> >>
>> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions
>> and patches attached to a [[
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are assumed
>> to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may not
>> require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in place.
>> >>
>> >
>> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason
>> > the project wishes to require them?
>> >
>> > --David
>>
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>.
I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a page
that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that.
The rest is for another audience.
On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
> was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
> your recommendations were:
>
> "Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider
> implicit
> the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
> Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
> in term of lines of code :-) )."
>
> "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
> Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be
> offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
> this level in my experience."
>
>
> I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
> I'll remove that section from the guide :)
>
> Thanks for checking!
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >> == Contributor license agreement ==
> >>
> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions and
> patches attached to a [[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]]
> issue are assumed to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and
> changes may not require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to
> have it in place.
> >>
> >
> > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason
> > the project wishes to require them?
> >
> > --David
>
Re: [Jclouds Wiki] Update of "How to contribute" by IgnasiBarrera
Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.
I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It
was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but
your recommendations were:
"Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider implicit
the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide.
Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures
in term of lines of code :-) )."
"David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list,
Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be
offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to
this level in my experience."
I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA.
I'll remove that section from the guide :)
Thanks for checking!
On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> == Contributor license agreement ==
>>
>> Before contributing, you may have to sign the [[http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions and patches attached to a [[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] issue are assumed to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and changes may not require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to have it in place.
>>
>
> A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason
> the project wishes to require them?
>
> --David