cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon MacDonald <simon.macdon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions
Date Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:09:57 GMT
+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