Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Brian Loss <bfloss@praxiseng.com>
To: "<dev@accumulo.apache.org>" <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Subject: Re: JIRA Patch Conventions
Thread-Topic: JIRA Patch Conventions
Thread-Index: 
 AQHOQJ8hhzQRDvZtnUyDyXQRA68yVZjlokGAgAAI1ICAABGnAIAAAFkAgAADzACAACfSgIAABY2AgAAXV4A=
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:28:25 +0000
Message-ID: <6852AB30-F76B-45B2-9BCD-74CFA7DB94C9@praxiseng.com>
References: 
 <CAJRvFdqH99p=MsHWaTKShc+i5U4wOyP3drkG6MFv4qbEYerbJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGUtCHqeKCoCvxOHcpGgR8sRNXHAVAM3NQp09qSiVcy7AKU0Aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5177E66D.9020503@gmail.com>
 <CAF1jEfD-HT0ivx_-cQ+iRp6y+w2QxL2xhfX3F8_rWfawkLcRfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYQyQ6z+syyGvCGZNiU+vNEzh-6gYBCmmEwjHTBOp_gfAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANVdDnghRGB4i+TXj8W8-7EV1rrV8TRTXZkrADNpdxgALAWu2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz+Dus=hbboo7TfYQftQybD_VYE0zJV8jEXK6CwGC=Usr6SqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9agWHFEfJ0epZucGY_1e4X1Nz72KUELor4T5r0gaSJuRg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL5zq9agWHFEfJ0epZucGY_1e4X1Nz72KUELor4T5r0gaSJuRg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3C633B0624291D4D9CABA1D048789541@praxiseng.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

+1 for this approach

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

> +1 for #2.
>=20
> Also, I like the convention: ACCUMULO-XXXX.#.patch, where XXX is the
> ticket number, and # is the 1-up identifier.
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, William Slacum
> <wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>> Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want m=
ore
>> history and less mystery.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <cnolet@texeltek.com> wrot=
e:
>>=20
>>> #2 as well.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>>>> <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming
>>> that
>>>>> we don't need ICLAs for patches.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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, i=
s
>>>>>> 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" <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Accumulo Devs,
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
>>>> advantage
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patc=
h
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Ditto.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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 believ=
e
>>>> the
>>>>>> ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and
>>> not
>>>>>> having the jira checkbox).
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Corey Nolet
>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>> TexelTek, inc.
>>> [Office] 301.880.7123
>>> [Cell] 410-903-2110
>>>=20