From general-return-26413-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Sep 14 02:06:54 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 64878 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2010 02:06:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2010 02:06:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 12629 invoked by uid 500); 14 Sep 2010 02:06:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 12455 invoked by uid 500); 14 Sep 2010 02:06:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 12447 invoked by uid 99); 14 Sep 2010 02:06:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 02:06:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.47] (HELO mail-bw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.214.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 02:06:46 +0000 Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so322822bwz.6 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:06:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Qe1jurIP8BKXGDZQCoelUBSj1htPtKSUinjSfn0L+Ho=; b=VVZMzJ6389Gf/wDtg8xECt2PubqDj/r+3xUL120ZjIDrdJCis+ELI8/8aLKooFtpf3 0sy3tBDLAX0OI2W4rDBNumKSCnWK2FvC/fdWIFxDiI0qzYZqYJwsdbFbhBblXX5x0Z8L IDYfnltCJnGfvw4VoU9xTf5/qiJ0G7KN8UlaI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=c6aUIoxU599t5SnuKAZAKzGBIIBXFF2mq/ae1AlwmRZK8zw0B0OuIPEAFXk75TTHtK FK2sw2kYPrjhbR0IGvxSpdsqmbbmyLS89XDOuN/e2cuQjPIQFJWQRGc7O9L6FnRmj3hQ qYa1qhxmr/VgSvdR/uVxrgkfto1EVUGn02mnA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.47.214 with SMTP id o22mr3815888bkf.17.1284429984409; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.55.140 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:06:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1284425758.5045.58.camel@avon.watzmann.net> <20100914014309.GA17294@daniel3.local> <415361.43155.qm@web54402.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:06:24 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Accepting patches in a podling From: Benson Margulies To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d644caf5aa0a04902ea877 --0016e6d644caf5aa0a04902ea877 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sorry to go on and on, but this ***is*** general@***incubator***. We're supposed to promulgate good community practices to new podlings. I didn't and don't mean to be dictating anything to nonP-PMCs. I stand by a position of recommending JIRA as a process for an ordinary new podling, bootstrapping a community more of less from scratch. In other words, this message was doubly not intended to be interpreted relative to the svn project, which is no longer a podling and was never being bootstrapped from scratch in the incubator. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > >> He says should, not must. Mailing lists are contribution >> mechanisms as well (per the license), so patches submitted >> there which aren't marked "Not a contribution" are acceptable. >> Jira's checkbox is the belt and suspenders approach. >> > > The original question didn't mention mailing lists. It didn't mention any > specifics at all. I reported the practice on the projects I'm familiar with. > In some of them, JIRA is the critical mechanism for patch review -- even for > people with commit access! In others, it's just the standard means for > people to submit patches. JIRA makes it harder to miss a patch. A JIRA with > a patch sits there where you can get it on a list of JIRAs that are > unresolved. A patch just sent to a mailing list might just disappear into > the ether. > > However, I thank Joe for pointing out that I was careful to avoid stating a > requirement when I didn't know that one existed. > > I've never hung out on an ASF project that (still) used email patches as > the common practice, so I was unaware of it. > > So, if you asked me, I'd say that using JIRA or BZ items is good > organizational hygiene, giving more people visibility into the process and > making it harder to drop a good contribution on the floor -- but if you have > a working system involving an official mailing list, you have a working > system. > > On the other hand, I think that we all agree that a patch mailed by > personal email to a committer who commits it is not a good thing. > > > > > >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Daniel Shahaf >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org >> > Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 9:43:09 PM >> > Subject: Re: Accepting patches in a podling >> > >> > So each patch /must/ go via JIRA and get some checkbox filled? >> > Seriously? >> > >> > 1. Over at Subversion, the practice has been to just say thankyou and >> > commit the patches. A few times, with large-scale contributions (eg: >> > someone sent us an SQL backend), we have required filing an ICLA first >> > --- but that has been needed VERY rarely. >> > >> > 2. So patch submitters get sent to JIRA just so they can /fill a >> > checkbox/? Never mind what the license says about submissions to the >> > mailing lists, why not simply ask them to write >> > >> > "I license the patch attached herewith under the Apache License, >> version >> >2.0" >> > >> > >> > at the top of their email? That's much less effort for them than >> filing >> > a JIRA. And imposing less work on patch submitters is Good. >> > >> > Benson Margulies wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 20:58:06 -0400: >> > > All patches should be attached to JIRAs with the 'grant' checkbox >> checked. >> > > Only if they are large do you then have to contemplate asking for a >> CLA and >> > > going through the clearance process. Or so I understand it. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:55 PM, David Lutterkort > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > What is the offical process for accepting patches from >> non-comitters in >> > > > a podling ? Is it enough to insist that contributors that are not >> > > > committers have a CLA on file or do I also have to make them file >> each >> > > > patch in jira ? >> > > > >> > > > David >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> >> > --0016e6d644caf5aa0a04902ea877--