cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:59:29 GMT
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-11916 proceeding with a docs PR.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok looks like we have consensus. I'll add a section here:
> http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/ and send a PR to the cordova-docs
> repo for comment.
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Simon MacDonald <
>> simon.macdonald@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > +1 to making it easier to allow people to contribute trivial changes.
>> >
>> > One thing Shaz just mentioned was adding a check box the the PR
>> template so
>> > that people can explicitly indicate their intent.
>> >
>> > Eventually it would be nice to be able to digitally sign the CLA.
>> >
>> > Simon Mac Donald
>> > http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > An easy definition of trivial IMO is "if they decide to pull this code
>> > away
>> > > from us, is it not a big deal?"
>> > >
>> > > The reasons why the code needs to be pulled, who knows what lurks in
>> the
>> > > minds of lawyers. Typos, doc changes, one liners, are not a big deal
>> > > usually.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, that is the point.  Sending a PR is intent!
>> > > > BUT if it is a large change, we need insurance that it is the work
>> of
>> > the
>> > > > contributor, and not copy/pasted from somewhere else, and that they
>> > > cannot
>> > > > retract it later.  This is what the CLA offers us.
>> > > > Currently, as Shaz pointed out above, we state firmly that we
>> require
>> > an
>> > > > iCLA, so this will simply state more clearly how we work with PRs.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > @purplecabbage
>> > > > risingj.com
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > So, it's basically the same system that we have now.  I still
>> think
>> > we
>> > > > > should get clear intent from the author, since that's more useful
>> and
>> > > > easy
>> > > > > than determining whether it's trivial.  I mean, isn't sending
a PR
>> > > > through
>> > > > > GitHub already clear intent?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > You decide per pr if you think it is trivial.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > @purplecabbage
>> > > > > > risingj.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I'll agree to this, since I don't know what the definition
of
>> > > trivial
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > w.r.t. Apache.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jesse <
>> purplecabbage@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > @purplecabbage
>> > > > > > > > risingj.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Shazron <
>> shazron@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Bump. There can't be lazy consensus on this.
Before I
>> > > potentially
>> > > > > > waste
>> > > > > > > > > time on drafting a proposal, trying to feel
the
>> temperature
>> > on
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > change.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Shazron <
>> shazron@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > It's up to us to decide, and right now
we require the
>> iCLA
>> > > > except
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > trivial contributions.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I want to change this to a more relaxed
requirement:
>> > > > > > > > > > 1. Non-committers do not require an
iCLA (you need one
>> > anyway
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > account, so that's really a non-issue)
>> > > > > > > > > > 2. Require a clear intent by the author
to contribute
>> under
>> > > our
>> > > > > > > normal
>> > > > > > > > > > terms, for a non-trivial change
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > So some of you will be wondering, what
does Apache say
>> > about
>> > > > > this?
>> > > > > > > > > > From: http://mail-archives.apache.
>> > org/mod_mbox/www-infrastru
>> > > > > > > > > > cture-dev/201112.mbox/%3CA603FFCE-623B-43E9-87F8-
>> > > > > > > 39BAA51C72D1@gbiv.com
>> > > > > > > > > %3E
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Roy Fielding:
>> > > > > > > > > > "Yes, that opinion comes from me speaking
as a board
>> member
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > author of the Apache License, and has
previously been
>> > cleared
>> > > > > > > > > > with Apache's legal team for a long
ago discussion with
>> > > > > Incubator.
>> > > > > > > > > > We don't need a CLA on file to accept
contributions from
>> > > > > > > > non-committers.
>> > > > > > > > > > We just need a clear intent by the author
to contribute
>> > under
>> > > > > > > > > > our normal terms."
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Other opinions: http://apetro.ghost.io/apache-
>> > > > > contributors-no-cla/
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > We need to change our Contribute page:
>> > > > > > > > > > http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > ... as well as any PR templates:
>> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-media/blob/
>> > master/.
>> > > > > > > > > > github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > This declaration of intent, if posted
on Github, will be
>> > > > > reflected
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > dev@cordova.apache.org since Apache
sends out an email
>> on
>> > > each
>> > > > > PR
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > comment to a PR, so we will be able
to track it in our
>> > > > archives.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > As usual it is always the committer's
responsibility to
>> > make
>> > > > sure
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > code they push to a repository is compliant
with ASF
>> > > policies.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message