incubator-lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
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,

> [...] 
>     Bugzilla #43835:
>     Added some cool new feature.
>     Submitted by: John Doe <>
> 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

- 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.


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

View raw message