Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nslater@tumbolia.org designates
 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nslater@tumbolia.org designates
 10.112.25.225 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.25.225;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJ_m3YBdyeJZMuEuGZiBC=fpkc7ZB=v+0qUdJp9sQJsYB0iTAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAN-3CB+1KTBREXji8mjy-FK97eBr4jivrE0-C7R=EwFF1QvdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ_m3YBdyeJZMuEuGZiBC=fpkc7ZB=v+0qUdJp9sQJsYB0iTAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 01:33:54 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CA+Y+446yAgkzJUWMR6CGBpEG28DzAM4YMq_Crd-QQeHKk_xjPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Advice on policy merging non-committer branches
From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d594830e9604ba60cda2

--bcaec554d594830e9604ba60cda2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Paul, can you document this somewhere? It looks like a great candidate for
our Git proposal to the ASF.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@apache.org> wrote:
> > I would like to merge a branch from a non-committer[1]. The log shows
> > a non-apache author, but an apache committer.
> >
> > What is the policy regarding this? I was thinking the following:
> >
> > 1. Merge freely and promiscuously from anybody in my GitHub (or
> > whatever) repo (community engagement)
>
> Not quite. More below.
>
> > 2. As the branch nears time for "promotion," ask the non-committer to
> > git format-patch and attach to JIRA, signing (checking) the license
> > transfer.
>
> Unnecessary.
>
> > 3. With that settled, either git rebase or `git am` (I'm unclear about
> > this). The point is, get an @apache.org committer id on each commit.
>
> Unnecessary.
>
> > 4. Push where appropriate into the ASF repo
> >
>
> Included in discussion of 1 below.
>
> > Questions:
> >
> > Must the non-committer attach the exact same commit id? Or is it
> > sufficient that it merely be the same diff (delta)? (I changed the ID
> > when I rebased his commit and added my email to the committer header.)
> >
>
> No. Commit SHA's are in no way important from a license perspective.
>
> > Before the JIRA license agreement, may we push non-committers' code to
> > the repo at all?
> >
>
> Kinda, see below.
>
> > Before the JIRA license agreement, may we push non-committers' code to
> > the more official branches: master, 1.2.x, etc.?
> >
> > May we push whatever we want so long as the license agreement is
> > signed (checked) before voting on a release artifact?
>
> For the last two questions, definitely not. Never push code to ASF
> hardware that you're not 100% certain is OK to be in the repository.
> That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have the ASF license
> attached, but if you don't know that it can be in the repo, don't push
> it.
>
> First things first, as a committer you have to remember the ICLA that
> you signed. Its your responsibility to make sure that all code you
> push to the repository is compliant with ASF policies and the legal
> aspects those entails.
>
> Before Git, the general policy we used in CouchDB was to request that
> non-trivial patches be submitted to JIRA and have people click the
> checkbox. While this captures the general intent of things, it has
> been declared an official position of the board that this is
> unnecessary for accepting contributions. It has also been decided that
> the committer and author fields do not have to be tied to specific
> Apache accounts.
>
> The policy as it stands now is that we must be able to demonstrate
> that there was a clear intent for the code in question to be
> contributed. While there hasn't been an official position on how to
> demonstrate intent I think there are a couple things that are fairly
> obvious:
>
> Traditional:
>
> 1. Same as always: Anything submitted to JIRA. The check box has been
> declared not a necessity though I think the input field is required,
> and if someone said "not-intended for inclusion" we should just
> clarify if that was an accident or not.
>
> 2. Patches submitted to a mailing list.
>
> New with Git:
>
> 3. If someone posts a link to a publicly available Git branch with
> language indicating their intent for it to be included, then we should
> feel free to add the repo as a remote and yank it in. While not
> absolutely necessary, it might be a good idea to rewrite the commit
> message to reference either the email or the original contributed
> commit sha (in case of a rebase) so that we can link the two.
>
> 4. Jukka Zitting has recently been doing work on connecting GitHub
> Pull Requests to the dev@ mailing lists. Assuming this is the case I
> think we should feel free to take any code submitted in this manner.
> Thus our old "Submit that to JIRA" would be a "Send us a Pull
> Request".
>
> In contrast, we shouldn't feel free to just find code in a random
> GitHub fork and push that onto ASF hardware. If there's something we
> see that we want then we should ask for clarification (plus that's
> only polite).
>
> Bottom line, as a committer you're responsible for the code that you
> push to the repository. If you're not sure on a specific patch or
> situation, bring it up to dev@ or similar venue and we can run it up
> the flag pole until we find an answer.
>

--bcaec554d594830e9604ba60cda2--