cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions
Date Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:37:23 GMT
+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