JIRA Patch Conventions

[Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>]

Accumulo Devs,

Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching updated
patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:

1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the advantage of
being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch was,
especially in case of back porting issues.
2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up identifier
for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and might
be useful in other ways.

I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a strong
preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean towards
option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email notification.

As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I remember
hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, so
removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.

Mike

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[Brian Loss <bf...@praxiseng.com>]

+1 for this approach

On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
 wrote:

> +1 for #2.
> 
> Also, I like the convention: ACCUMULO-XXXX.#.patch, where XXX is the
> ticket number, and # is the 1-up identifier.
> 
> The ACCUMULO-XXXX part is nice so you don't lose context when you
> download the file locally, and the .patch suffix is nice because many
> editors will do syntax highlighting. (of course, I'm talking about
> patches for the filename extension... one could just as easily provide
> a .java file or a .jpg or something else).
> 
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, William Slacum
> <wi...@accumulo.net> wrote:
>> Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more
>> history and less mystery.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> #2 as well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>>>> <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming
>>> that
>>>>> we don't need ICLAs for patches.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
>>>>>> ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
>>>>>> licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
>>>>>> an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to
>>> ask
>>>>>> casual patchers for ICLAs.
>>>>> On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Accumulo Devs,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
>>>> advantage
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>> especially in case of back porting issues.
>>>>>>>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
>>>>> identifier
>>>>>>>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments,
>>> and
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> be useful in other ways.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have
>>> a
>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
>>>>> towards
>>>>>>>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
>>>>> notification.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I
>>> do
>>>>> not
>>>>>>> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
>>>>>>> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
>>>>>>> projects do this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ditto.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation,
>>>> so
>>>>>>>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to
>>>> the
>>>>>> ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe
>>>> the
>>>>>> ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and
>>> not
>>>>>> having the jira checkbox).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Corey Nolet
>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>> TexelTek, inc.
>>> [Office] 301.880.7123
>>> [Cell] 410-903-2110
>>> 

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

+1 for #2.

Also, I like the convention: ACCUMULO-XXXX.#.patch, where XXX is the
ticket number, and # is the 1-up identifier.

The ACCUMULO-XXXX part is nice so you don't lose context when you
download the file locally, and the .patch suffix is nice because many
editors will do syntax highlighting. (of course, I'm talking about
patches for the filename extension... one could just as easily provide
a .java file or a .jpg or something else).

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, William Slacum
<wi...@accumulo.net> wrote:
> Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more
> history and less mystery.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
>
>> #2 as well.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>> > <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > > I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming
>> that
>> > > we don't need ICLAs for patches.
>> > >
>> > > > Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
>> > > > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
>> > > > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
>> > > > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to
>> ask
>> > > > casual patchers for ICLAs.
>> > > On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  Accumulo Devs,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
>> > > updated
>> > > >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
>> > advantage
>> > > of
>> > > >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
>> > > was,
>> > > >>> especially in case of back porting issues.
>> > > >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
>> > > identifier
>> > > >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments,
>> and
>> > > >>> might
>> > > >>> be useful in other ways.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have
>> a
>> > > >>> strong
>> > > >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
>> > > towards
>> > > >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
>> > > notification.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>  I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I
>> do
>> > > not
>> > > >> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
>> > > >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
>> > > >> projects do this.
>> > > >>
>> > > > Ditto.
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
>> > > >>> remember
>> > > >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation,
>> > so
>> > > >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>  Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
>> > > >>
>> > > > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to
>> > the
>> > > > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe
>> > the
>> > > > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and
>> not
>> > > > having the jira checkbox).
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  Mike
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Corey Nolet
>> Senior Software Engineer
>> TexelTek, inc.
>> [Office] 301.880.7123
>> [Cell] 410-903-2110
>>

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[William Slacum <wi...@accumulo.net>]

Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more
history and less mystery.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:

> #2 as well.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
> > <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming
> that
> > > we don't need ICLAs for patches.
> > >
> > > > Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
> > > > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
> > > > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
> > > > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to
> ask
> > > > casual patchers for ICLAs.
> > > On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  Accumulo Devs,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
> > > updated
> > > >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
> > advantage
> > > of
> > > >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
> > > was,
> > > >>> especially in case of back porting issues.
> > > >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
> > > identifier
> > > >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments,
> and
> > > >>> might
> > > >>> be useful in other ways.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>  I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have
> a
> > > >>> strong
> > > >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
> > > towards
> > > >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
> > > notification.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I
> do
> > > not
> > > >> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
> > > >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
> > > >> projects do this.
> > > >>
> > > > Ditto.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>  As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
> > > >>> remember
> > > >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation,
> > so
> > > >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
> > > >>
> > > > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to
> > the
> > > > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe
> > the
> > > > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and
> not
> > > > having the jira checkbox).
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  Mike
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Corey Nolet
> Senior Software Engineer
> TexelTek, inc.
> [Office] 301.880.7123
> [Cell] 410-903-2110
>

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com>]

#2 as well.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:

> I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
> <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming that
> > we don't need ICLAs for patches.
> >
> > > Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
> > > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
> > > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
> > > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to ask
> > > casual patchers for ICLAs.
> > On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  Accumulo Devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
> > updated
> > >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
> advantage
> > of
> > >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
> > was,
> > >>> especially in case of back porting issues.
> > >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
> > identifier
> > >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and
> > >>> might
> > >>> be useful in other ways.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>  I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a
> > >>> strong
> > >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
> > towards
> > >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
> > notification.
> > >>>
> > >>>  I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I do
> > not
> > >> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
> > >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
> > >> projects do this.
> > >>
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>  As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
> > >>> remember
> > >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation,
> so
> > >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>>  Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
> > >>
> > > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to
> the
> > > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe
> the
> > > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and not
> > > having the jira checkbox).
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  Mike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Corey Nolet
Senior Software Engineer
TexelTek, inc.
[Office] 301.880.7123
[Cell] 410-903-2110

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[John Vines <vi...@apache.org>]

I too am in favor of the patch history being available.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
<bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming that
> we don't need ICLAs for patches.
>
> > Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
> > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
> > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
> > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to ask
> > casual patchers for ICLAs.
> On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Accumulo Devs,
> >>>
> >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
> updated
> >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the advantage
> of
> >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
> was,
> >>> especially in case of back porting issues.
> >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
> identifier
> >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and
> >>> might
> >>> be useful in other ways.
> >>>
> >>
> >>  I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a
> >>> strong
> >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
> towards
> >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
> notification.
> >>>
> >>>  I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I do
> not
> >> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
> >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
> >> projects do this.
> >>
> > Ditto.
> >
> >>
> >>  As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
> >>> remember
> >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, so
> >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
> >>>
> >>>  Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
> >>
> > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to the
> > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe the
> > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and not
> > having the jira checkbox).
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>  Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>]

I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming that
we don't need ICLAs for patches.

> Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
> ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
> licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
> an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to ask
> casual patchers for ICLAs.
On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Accumulo Devs,
>>>
>>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching updated
>>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>>>
>>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the advantage of
>>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch was,
>>> especially in case of back porting issues.
>>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up identifier
>>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and
>>> might
>>> be useful in other ways.
>>>
>>
>>  I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a
>>> strong
>>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean towards
>>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email notification.
>>>
>>>  I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I do not
>> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
>> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
>> projects do this.
>>
> Ditto.
>
>>
>>  As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
>>> remember
>>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, so
>>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
>>>
>>>  Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
>>
> I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to the
> ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe the
> ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and not
> having the jira checkbox).
>
>>
>>
>>  Mike
>>>
>>>
>

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>]

On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>
>> Accumulo Devs,
>>
>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching updated
>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>>
>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the advantage of
>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch was,
>> especially in case of back porting issues.
>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up identifier
>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and might
>> be useful in other ways.
>
>> I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a strong
>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean towards
>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email notification.
>>
> I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I do not
> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
> projects do this.
Ditto.
>
>> As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I remember
>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, so
>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
>>
> Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to the 
ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe 
the ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and 
not having the jira checkbox).
>
>
>> Mike
>>

Re: JIRA Patch Conventions

[Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:

> Accumulo Devs,
>
> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching updated
> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>
> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the advantage of
> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch was,
> especially in case of back porting issues.
> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up identifier
> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and might
> be useful in other ways.


> I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a strong
> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean towards
> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email notification.
>

I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I do not
have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
projects do this.


>
> As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I remember
> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, so
> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
>

Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?


>
> Mike
>