You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> on 2006/05/18 11:21:27 UTC
The definition of "bulk" (was: Re: ITC rmi tests (was Re: towards a...))
Gang,
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:30:53PM +0100, Tim Ellison wrote:
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> > On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
> >> Mark Hindess wrote:
> >>> Daniel,
> >>>
> >>> I've just contributed a JIRA,
> >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471
> >>> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi. (The jsr14
> >>> version. Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches
> >>> for the tests next.)
> >> We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite,
> >> I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473
> >> (I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-)
> >> so please take that test suite.
> >
> > Thanks for the heads-up. I just saw the JIRA messages. (I notice it
> > includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution. But
> > I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution
> > rather than a new contribution? That is we don't need to wait for
> > another vote.)
>
> I disagree -- i think the simplest thing would be for Daniel to submit
> the delta rather than another version of the original contribution.
A derivative work of something under the apache license is not automatically
under the apache license. Similarly, a derivative work to which multiple
people contributed is still a bulk contribution.
Our policy currently says
"Any software or other contribution that was not created explicitly for
Apache Harmony *in* the Apache Harmony project is considered to be a
'Bulk Contribution'. "
the emphasis on *in* is there for a reason. What we identify here (among other
things) is a mode of operation where various parties do their development work
in isolation and then every now and then submit some patches.
When I see a sentence like "We've been working on [foo], I've contributed
that [here]", to me that makes it clear that what is under discussion is a
Bulk Contribution (work by multiple parties contributed by a single party), and
the minimum amount of paperwork to me seems to be the bulk contribution
checklist (if all the previously sent-in paperwork such as CLAs and grants and
ACQs can be considered applicable to the new contribution).
The only way to avoid this kind of paperwork is to have all the individuals
that work on this stuff interact within harmony directly so that it is
unambigous that any identifiable set of work was produced *here*. Put another
way: contributors to the ASF are individuals, not companies, when there's doubt,
do the paperwork.
Now, we could of course start a discussion on whether we should change our
policies, but until we do, lets please all follow it very very carefully.
Or did I misunderstand something? In that case, can someone help me get
un-confused?
cheers!
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: The definition of "bulk"
Posted by Alan Adamson <ad...@ca.ibm.com>.
I hope you are at JavaOne. Otherwise the time on this note is just silly.
Alan Adamson 905-413-5933 Tieline 969-5933 FAX: 905-413-4854
Java Performance Internet: adamson@ca.ibm.com
Java Technology Centre
IBM Toronto Lab
Re: The definition of "bulk"
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Gang,
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:30:53PM +0100, Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <da...@neosur.com> wrote:
>>>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>>>> Daniel,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just contributed a JIRA,
>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471
>>>>> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi. (The jsr14
>>>>> version. Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches
>>>>> for the tests next.)
>>>> We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite,
>>>> I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473
>>>> (I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-)
>>>> so please take that test suite.
>>> Thanks for the heads-up. I just saw the JIRA messages. (I notice it
>>> includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution. But
>>> I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution
>>> rather than a new contribution? That is we don't need to wait for
>>> another vote.)
>> I disagree -- i think the simplest thing would be for Daniel to submit
>> the delta rather than another version of the original contribution.
>
> A derivative work of something under the apache license is not automatically
> under the apache license. Similarly, a derivative work to which multiple
> people contributed is still a bulk contribution.
>
> Our policy currently says
>
> "Any software or other contribution that was not created explicitly for
> Apache Harmony *in* the Apache Harmony project is considered to be a
> 'Bulk Contribution'. "
>
> the emphasis on *in* is there for a reason. What we identify here (among other
> things) is a mode of operation where various parties do their development work
> in isolation and then every now and then submit some patches.
>
> When I see a sentence like "We've been working on [foo], I've contributed
> that [here]", to me that makes it clear that what is under discussion is a
> Bulk Contribution (work by multiple parties contributed by a single party), and
> the minimum amount of paperwork to me seems to be the bulk contribution
> checklist (if all the previously sent-in paperwork such as CLAs and grants and
> ACQs can be considered applicable to the new contribution).
I understand. That's why I asked Daniel to resubmit just the delta to
the original contribution so it can be accepted as work within the project.
> The only way to avoid this kind of paperwork is to have all the individuals
> that work on this stuff interact within harmony directly so that it is
> unambigous that any identifiable set of work was produced *here*. Put another
> way: contributors to the ASF are individuals, not companies, when there's doubt,
> do the paperwork.
Agreed. Small frequent updates to the code are good.
> Now, we could of course start a discussion on whether we should change our
> policies, but until we do, lets please all follow it very very carefully.
I don't think we need to go there right now.
> Or did I misunderstand something? In that case, can someone help me get
> un-confused?
Daniel has restructured code and made some enhancements. He submitted
the 'results' of that work rather than the description/patches, so we
asked him to resubmit. I think that works.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org