Re: Where I can get the Derby design document?

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:

| On Aug 31, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
|
|>> What would be the best way to manage getting content onto the
|>> web site? Post the doc to this list? (Or are attachments
|>> completely annoying?)
|>
|> http://db.apache.org/communication.html says "no" to attachments.
|>
|
| It recommends "in-lining" patches when you can.  However, the
| recommendation to "provide a URL for retrieval" is somewhat
| bothersome as there are IP issues with grabbing patches from
| URLs--it's much better for the ASF to receive a patch via the
| mailing list.  Sending a patch to the list is a much clearer way
| (legally) to implicitly grant the ASF the right to use the code.

So in the case of docs, would it work better to include the document
in the body of the email itself? Initially I would expect short
documents to be the rule of thumb.

If somebody writes a tome too large for the body of email, perhaps
they could post a note to the list asking how to best handle it -- and
wouldn't that be cool!

~ -jean

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBNQqAF0L6u5lYbCYRApjyAJ9q8rZ6atlTD1aeEZBaqxPv5yeMMQCfSBWO
M9QPR5YZTRHhs/KuZTl9Jk8=
=8bpf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derby document submission guidelines

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm starting a new thread based on the "Where I can get the Derby
design document?" thread.

I'd like to discuss guidelines for doc submissions to the Derby site,
then document them on the Derby web site to encourage submissions, and
include information for committers on how to get docs into forrest so
I don't become the log jam getting content onto the site.

But there's a ways to go before I could begin to submit suggestions
for a VOTE.

My starting point is the http://db.apache.org/source.html page, which
has guidelines for doc and code submissions.

Based on the earlier "Where I can get the Derby design document?"
thread, I think we want to ask contributors to include the document in
the body of the document, not as an attachment or an URL. Although not
stated specifically in the db.apache.org guidelines, I think it would
be reasonable for document submissions to have a subject starting with
[DOC] -- the wording on that page specifically covers [PATCH].

But I have one main question. The http://db.apache.org/source.html
page says "Any code, document, or binary that is committed to the
Project's repositories, but not being donated to the ASF, must be
clearly marked as such. All contributors should have a Contributor
License Agreement <http://db.apache.org/agreement.html> on file."

So, I'd just like to clarify this. If somebody figures out how to do
something cool with Derby and he/she writes up a short white paper and
posts it to derby-dev or derby-user for inclusion on the web site,
must he/she have a CLA on file for me to add it to the repository?

Sorry to ding the list with questions that smack of legalise, but it'd
probably be best to work the details out now, then make it easy for
people to contribute content.

~ -jean

p.s. my key is uploaded to www.keyserver.net. I'll additionally upload
to the servers Ken Coar mentioned.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBNjZhF0L6u5lYbCYRAhpsAKCTZT1xEitfCIAvGxPROrTYU/apLQCfYBXY
EtK8ijmmCmwlaM5PdarHVKo=
=1+hU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Where I can get the Derby design document?

["Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>]

On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> | On Aug 31, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> |
> |>> What would be the best way to manage getting content onto the
> |>> web site? Post the doc to this list? (Or are attachments
> |>> completely annoying?)
> |>
> |> http://db.apache.org/communication.html says "no" to attachments.
> |>
> |
> | It recommends "in-lining" patches when you can.  However, the
> | recommendation to "provide a URL for retrieval" is somewhat
> | bothersome as there are IP issues with grabbing patches from
> | URLs--it's much better for the ASF to receive a patch via the
> | mailing list.  Sending a patch to the list is a much clearer way
> | (legally) to implicitly grant the ASF the right to use the code.
>
> So in the case of docs, would it work better to include the document
> in the body of the email itself? Initially I would expect short
> documents to be the rule of thumb.
>
> If somebody writes a tome too large for the body of email, perhaps
> they could post a note to the list asking how to best handle it -- and
> wouldn't that be cool!

Well, typically, by the time a person gets to a point where they're 
contributing patches/documents too big for the email list, that person 
would have already gotten commit access, so they could just commit the 
documents right into the repository.

-Fitz