Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Multipart
From: Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D58E2D9A.99300%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:34:04 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B57D715-FA70-4820-BC9C-AAFD8D29A1EF@gmail.com>
References: <D97789D9-369C-4930-AB2B-39F4F2193061@gmail.com> <D58BEF08.98D5E%aharui@adobe.com> <E30E2C71-3EE0-4384-BF5E-3592147CA094@gmail.com> <D58C4042.98F2B%aharui@adobe.com> <CC77F32A-BE32-4E1C-80AA-D56CBA1ECCC5@gmail.com> <D58D2EA0.991FE%aharui@adobe.com> <8AE038BB-27D5-4F6A-9045-298F8EE33224@gmail.com> <D58E2D9A.99300%aharui@adobe.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org
archived-at: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:34:19 -0000

I contacted the other contributors.

I already got permission from the one who did the critical fix. =
(forwarded to the dev list) That only leaves one more who did =
convenience code changes. We can remove that code if necessary.

The document changes were not in the class file. It was to the readme in =
the repo.

Question: I assume that we keep the same package naming if we include it =
on the repo unless it=E2=80=99s specifically donated to Apache. Correct?

What about a modified class that I changed to work with FlexJS? Would =
that get an apache package path or not?

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID> =
wrote:
>=20
> AIUI, we are supposed to try to contact all contributors, no matter =
how
> small.  If you don't hear from all of them, the PMC has to make a risk
> assessment.  If we take un-permitted lines of code and someone later
> objects, could we quickly remove those lines of code and replace it?  =
Or,
> should our initial check-in not include un-permitted lines of code and =
the
> first commits replace them?
>=20
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
>=20
> On 7/13/17, 2:40 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> One of them was documentation edits.
>>=20
>> Another was a workaround for a Flash permissions issue. It was a =
sometime
>> yes, sometimes no problem. I finally found where the problem lay that
>> required that code. You can see the comments in old issues on that =
repo.
>> That piece of code is very necessary for Flash. There=E2=80=99s =
really only one
>> way to solve that particular issue. Not sure if he can own that =
solution.
>>=20
>> The third was some convenience methods. Not a major contribution.
>>=20
>>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:07 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Made two comments in the GH issue.  Looks like there were other
>>> contributors so we may need to get their permission to make the =
license
>>> ALv2.
>>>=20
>>> Of course, I could be wrong,...
>>> -Alex
>>>=20
>>> On 7/12/17, 9:14 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> I don=E2=80=99t think he has plans on modifying it.
>>>>=20
>>>> Do you mind making the suggestion about the header to the Github =
issue?
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> IMO, if the original author will be helping make changes to this =
file,
>>>>> we
>>>>> want an ICLA.  If he has no plans to work on it, then attaching it =
to
>>>>> a
>>>>> JIRA would be sufficient documentation of his intent to donate it.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Either way, it would help if he put the 3rd-party ALv2 header in =
the
>>>>> file.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On 7/12/17, 8:59 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> In our repo with my modifications for FlexJS.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:22 AM, Alex Harui =
<aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "adopt".  That the new home for further
>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>> is in our repo or that we're using it as a third-party =
dependency?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On 7/12/17, 12:45 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> There=E2=80=99s a great class for uploading multi-part HTTP =
requests. I=E2=80=99ve
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> using it for years, and I=E2=80=99ve ported it for use with =
FlexJS. It
>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>> great in that context too.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> I just asked the author if he minds if we adopt it and he=E2=80=99=
s very
>>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>>> for us to do so.[1]
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> It=E2=80=99s one class. Do we need to go through an ICLA, or =
can we just
>>>>>>>> bring
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> in with no fuss?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
[1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F
>>>>>>>> gi
>>>>>>>> th
>>>>>>>> ub
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
.com%2Fjimojon%2FMultipart.as%2Fissues%2F9&data=3D02%7C01%7C%7C61a62bf
>>>>>>>> 56
>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>> 14
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
5e9929708d4c95e9650%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636
>>>>>>>> 35
>>>>>>>> 48
>>>>>>>> 55
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
465043104&sdata=3D2SKnAIfWKXwDacqORK3Td9AyYffkEXBYr%2BTPdtm6efo%3D&res
>>>>>>>> er
>>>>>>>> ve
>>>>>>>> d=3D
>>>>>>>> 0=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgi
>>>>>>>> th
>>>>>>>> ub
>>>>>>>> .c
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
om%2Fjimojon%2FMultipart.as%2Fissues%2F9&data=3D02%7C01%7C%7C61a62bf56
>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>> 14
>>>>>>>> 5e
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
9929708d4c95e9650%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63635
>>>>>>>> 48
>>>>>>>> 55
>>>>>>>> 46
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =
5043104&sdata=3D2SKnAIfWKXwDacqORK3Td9AyYffkEXBYr%2BTPdtm6efo%3D&reser
>>>>>>>> ve
>>>>>>>> d=3D
>>>>>>>> 0>
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20