incubator-lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Grant plan
Date Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:07:05 GMT
Hi Marvin,

> For instance, there's a fellow named Edward Betts who's credited 4 times in
> the SVN logs.  Edward submitted several test cases which exposed low level
> bugs.  However, as hard as he worked on those test cases, they were never
> integrated into the code base, because the test cases themselves were all high
> level; the final commits typically include either a test I wrote for the
> failing lower level component or no test at all.

If you didn't integrate his patch, then what's the problem?

> 
> I don't think we need to contact Edward; if he doesn't participate in the
> grant, there are no commits that need to be backed out.   However, since I
> didn't clearly differentiate in the commit messages between when a patch was
> integrated into the code base (requiring participation in the grant) versus
> when someone simply reported a bug, I thought it would be worthwhile to enter
> that information into the public record.

Entering = fine. 
Waiting on them to reply or confirm that you entered it = waste of time,
IMO.

> 
> [...] 
>     Bugzilla #43835:
>     Added some cool new feature.
>     Submitted by: John Doe <john.doe.at.null.org>
> 
> Basically, names should be listed in SVN logs if and only if there is a
> copyright interest.  For moral credit, the mailing list archives suffice.
> 
> (I thought I'd seen a note about that somewhere in the dev documentation, but
> I can't seem to track it down right now.)

FYI, this isn't a rule set in stone -- most of the time in SVN logs I just
say: 

- fix for JIRA-ISSUE-ID <short desc>

Then, in JIRA I always make sure to resolve with:

"Patch contributed by Person X and applied in rY. Thanks Person X!"

The combination of JIRA + SVN is fine as well. In short, credit the person,
but there is not just one way to credit them.

>> OK, when you are ready let me know. I think having someone besides you do
>> the import is critical (remember: single point of failure?) :)
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I believe that as a matter of formal process, the Incubator PMC has the
> binding vote on accepting the software grant.  However, I think we should also
> consider holding a lazy-consensus vote of the Lucy PPMC as to whether we
> accept the grant.  Nobody else on the PPMC is going to be reviewing the commit
> history like I have been, but as a collective we should be making an effort to
> follow along with the process.

Hmmm, I'm thinking overkill again. The Lucy PPMC and IPMC mentors watching
it can preside over this import and it's a good sign of community growing to
follow the SGA process, and then to evolve the resultant code base into
something that's releasable under the Incubator guidelines. We don't need a
formal vote on this. The vote will come when we try and release the
resultant downstream Apache Lucy product.

> 
>> I'll throw my name into the hat to svn import it, since I worked with Joe S.
>> to get it done on OODT. Any other mentors want to do it, just let me know
>> and I'll stand down.
> 
> This step is pretty much mechanical, though, right?  It's just verifying the
> MD5, unpacking the tarball into an "import" directory, doing a big "svn add"
> and committing everything.  In the proposal, we mention that the code source
> will be a "snapshot" from the KinoSearch repository -- we're not planning to
> import the entire SVN history.

Right, it's mechanical, all the easier for a mentor to do it since we're
busy :) If it was more than mechanical I might not have time *grin*.

+1 to pulling in a snapshot. Fine by me.


> OK, then how about we just scratch the email plan and err on the side of
> putting people into the grant if they supplied any IP that was integrated into
> the project?  We're only talking about 10 people or so anyway, since most
> people who made drive-by contributions went on to make bigger ones later.
> 
> If I understand correctly, if some grant participants fail to send in their
> SGA forms, we just have to reverse their contributions before we can make a
> release -- it doesn't invalidate the whole grant.  However, since that
> assertion only appears in the Mentor documentation, I'm not 100% certain of
> that...

Yep, set some realistic expectations.

1. if they don't reply in a week, reverse their code out of the code drop.
2. if they do reply in a week, include them in the grant.
3. after a week, make the snapshot, get the SGA signed and work with a
mentor to submit the SGA to the Apache secretary. Then, code drop, and away
we go.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Mime
View raw message