User Management Contribution

[Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>]

Hi,

I have seen a patch for the user management submitted by Reto with the
comment that this patch was originally from "Danny Ayers via fusepool
github". [1]

[1] http://stanbol.markmail.org/thread/pldhvsgcwcl3qoxm

First, again there was no discussion about user management features on
the dev list. So this feature does not exist by our definition of
using the dev list. What is not on the list - did not happen.

Second, there is no record that Danny wanted to contribute. This is
not the way code and patches should come into the code base. How do we
know that Danny, as the copyright holder, wanted to contribute this to
Stanbol?

Such a way of doing things creates the impression that some people in
the fusepool project are developing things, which may be nice to have,
but refuse to interact with the Stanbol community and instead submit
their code via other committers.

So please, encourage people to submit their patches via our typical
channels in Jira. Discuss things on the dev mailing list.

All contributions are really welcome but do not forget about the community.

Best,
 - Fabian

--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Re: User Management Contribution

[Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>]

Hi Fabian, all

With rev1435504 the build should be stable again. The reason for the
broken build where some "old" version in the bundlelists, pom files
and also some wrong Import- /Export-Package directives that started to
cause problems after the version upgrade.

However there was also one systematic issue I want to describe in more
details as it will come up again with every release.

_Provider policy__

Imported packages that use "provide:=true" may cause problems with
releases that upgrade the version =.+.+. This is because the new
snapshot version is no longer within the version range of the imported
package. So if a component want to keep the dependency to the release
version one needs to manually define the version range of the imported
package.

Here is an example for the rules.web module:

It defines a dependency to
"org.apache.stanbol:org.apache.stanbol.commons.web.base:0.11.0".
However the Launchers where upgraded to the newest "0.12.0-SNAPSHOT"
version of this module. Because of that the "Import-Package" directive
"org.apache.stanbol.commons.web.base; provide:=true;" does exclude the
exported package version at runtime . This is because "provide:=true"
results in a version range [=.=.=,=.+.+) - in this case
[0.11.0,0.12.0).

To solve this one needs to manually define the version range to
"version="[0.11,0.13)"" by specifying

    org.apache.stanbol.commons.web.base; provide:=true; version="[0.11,0.13)",


Note also that as soon as (for some reason) the dependency to the
"org.apache.stanbol:org.apache.stanbol.commons.web.base" needs to be
upgraded to "0.12.0-SNAPSHOT" this also means that the manually
defined version range MUST BE deleted again. That means that developer
that upgrade a dependency need also have a look at the Import-Pakckage
directives for packages exported by the upgraded dependency.

best
Rupert


[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1435504&view=rev

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Fabian Christ
<ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Reto,
>
> 2013/1/18 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>:
>> The usermanagement pane was added within STANBOL-721. This version had very
>> obvious bugs, this issue is to fix some of this bugs.
>
> Okay if this was a bug fix. It just looked like a really large one and
> then it is hard to see what is happening.
>
>> The legal aspects:
>> I've been resolving this issues together with Danny Ayers using a git
>> repository. I take the full responsibility for the code. As I paid Danny's
>> company for Danny's work and the intented the purpose of the coding (i.e.
>> contribution to Apache Stanbol) was clear I believe that I'm the copyright
>> holder for this code. I'm sure that if I'm not the copyright holder Danny
>> is willing to contribute the code to Apache. @Danny: could you please
>> confirm this.
>
> I am not a lawyer but as far as I understood the Apache way: From the
> ASF perspective it does not matter who pays whom for what or which
> (sub-)contracts exists. People contribute to the ASF and its projects
> - not companies. So individuals need to make the contribution. If you
> are the copyright holder - fine. But it seems that Danny is listening
> - so just stand up and announce your welcome contribution ;)
>
> Thanks for the clarification Reto!
> Best,
>  - Fabian
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt



-- 
| Rupert Westenthaler             rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
| Bodenlehenstraße 11                             ++43-699-11108907
| A-5500 Bischofshofen

Re: User Management Contribution

[Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>]

Hi Reto,

2013/1/18 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>:
> The usermanagement pane was added within STANBOL-721. This version had very
> obvious bugs, this issue is to fix some of this bugs.

Okay if this was a bug fix. It just looked like a really large one and
then it is hard to see what is happening.

> The legal aspects:
> I've been resolving this issues together with Danny Ayers using a git
> repository. I take the full responsibility for the code. As I paid Danny's
> company for Danny's work and the intented the purpose of the coding (i.e.
> contribution to Apache Stanbol) was clear I believe that I'm the copyright
> holder for this code. I'm sure that if I'm not the copyright holder Danny
> is willing to contribute the code to Apache. @Danny: could you please
> confirm this.

I am not a lawyer but as far as I understood the Apache way: From the
ASF perspective it does not matter who pays whom for what or which
(sub-)contracts exists. People contribute to the ASF and its projects
- not companies. So individuals need to make the contribution. If you
are the copyright holder - fine. But it seems that Danny is listening
- so just stand up and announce your welcome contribution ;)

Thanks for the clarification Reto!
Best,
 - Fabian

--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

Re: User Management Contribution

[Reto Bachmann-Gmür <re...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I'll be in holidays for the next 10 days so I can tell you more later.

A first quick information:

The usermanagement pane was added within STANBOL-721. This version had very
obvious bugs, this issue is to fix some of this bugs.

The legal aspects:
I've been resolving this issues together with Danny Ayers using a git
repository. I take the full responsibility for the code. As I paid Danny's
company for Danny's work and the intented the purpose of the coding (i.e.
contribution to Apache Stanbol) was clear I believe that I'm the copyright
holder for this code. I'm sure that if I'm not the copyright holder Danny
is willing to contribute the code to Apache. @Danny: could you please
confirm this.

The process aspect:
I think changes of functionality or larger new components should be
discussed on the mailing list. I don't think that this is the case for
fixing obvious bugs. An example for a compatibility breaking change is
STANBOL-806 it is certainly very important to inform downstream integrators
(i.e. have a mail on the user list clearly informing about the
consequences) about the change of the artifact names especially since this
is done without prior releases of the artifacts under their old name. Major
new functionality affecting many components like STANBOL-105 would also
ideally be discussed more on the list. Requiring every bug to be posted
once on the list and submitted to jira seems like unnecessary formalism to
me.

Cheers,
Reto

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Fabian Christ <christ.fabian@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have seen a patch for the user management submitted by Reto with the
> comment that this patch was originally from "Danny Ayers via fusepool
> github". [1]
>
> [1] http://stanbol.markmail.org/thread/pldhvsgcwcl3qoxm
>
> First, again there was no discussion about user management features on
> the dev list. So this feature does not exist by our definition of
> using the dev list. What is not on the list - did not happen.
>
> Second, there is no record that Danny wanted to contribute. This is
> not the way code and patches should come into the code base. How do we
> know that Danny, as the copyright holder, wanted to contribute this to
> Stanbol?
>
> Such a way of doing things creates the impression that some people in
> the fusepool project are developing things, which may be nice to have,
> but refuse to interact with the Stanbol community and instead submit
> their code via other committers.
>
> So please, encourage people to submit their patches via our typical
> channels in Jira. Discuss things on the dev mailing list.
>
> All contributions are really welcome but do not forget about the community.
>
> Best,
>  - Fabian
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>