openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Best practices for contributing code to both Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:30:22 GMT
I learned something again tonight. Since there is an audit trail then your
idea is perfect and first of all easy to handle.

Jan.

On 14 November 2012 20:21, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM, jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 14 November 2012 20:01, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM, jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > +1 in general to your ideas, it would be VERY nice to have an easy
> way,
> >> and
> >> > the more we all do to make it easy the more developers will work for
> both
> >> > projects. I do however have one question.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding the mark #AOOCONTRIBUTION. It an AOO committer take the code
> >> and
> >> > integrate it, would that not be a clear violation of the ICLA
> paragraph
> >> 7.
> >> > As I read it, taking code requires a lot of extra red tape, compared
> to
> >> if
> >> > someone actively sends the code and asks a committer to integrate it ?
> >> >
> >> > I might be wrong, but from past experience with apache, taking source
> >> that
> >> > has not clearly been sent with the purpose of integration, can lead to
> >> > problems. Remember it is not easy to proof who actually set the flag,
> >> > whereas a mail sent is a clear indication.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I agree that this would only work if we know that the patch author set
> >> the flag.  But this can be done via normal means.  If you recall, I
> >> didn't ask for your fingerprints or a DNA sample before integrating
> >> your patches ;-)  Unless shown otherwise I hope we can assume that no
> >> one is committing fraud, like editing someone else's commit to add a
> >> tag to it.
> >>
> > No you did not, but as I wrote...I sent the patches on a public mail to
> > you, so there are no doubt about my intentions. Just for the sake of
> > discussion (I am not implying anybody would do the following), assume I
> > issue a patch for AOO (or LO) and do not set the flag, LO (or AOO) wants
> > the patch so an administrator "assumes" I forgot the set the flag and
> helps
> > me.
> >
>
> So your point is that emails are harder to intentionally or
> accidentally change.  Version control and BZ are editable (even
> Subversion memos can be changed) but we have these systems set up to
> echo changes to email lists (issues@ and commits@) so there is a full
> audit trail.   So I think on the Apache side we can handle this.  But
> I'm not sure whether LibreOffice also echos all BZ changes, etc., to a
> list.
>
> > If I may extend your idea a little, when the flag is sent, AOO/LO sends a
> > confirmation e-mail to the developer and asks if it correct to integrate
> > (correctly formulated this mail can even give the developer more
> > motivation) ?
> >
>
> Any solution that relies on custom development is a bit harder.
>
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> > Jan I
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 14 November 2012 19:28, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I've heard some discussion and interest in this topic off-list.
>  There
> >> >> has been some practical experience, but nothing that we've written
> >> >> down or promoted.  I'd be interested in seeing if we can come up with
> >> >> some solid best practices.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem:  Many (most?) open source contributors are not opposed
> to
> >> >> AOO or LO.  They are just interested in helping out.  If they produce
> >> >> a patch, or documentation, fix a bug or add a translation, they want
> >> >> to maximize the public good that comes from that work.  License
> >> >> differences are confusing and frustrating and bring them no joy.
>  They
> >> >> want a set of clear instructions for how they can  do the most good
> >> >> with the least process overhead.
> >> >>
> >> >> Naturally, I'm looking at this from the AOO side.  But most of these
> >> >> issues are symmetrical.  So for sake of argument, suppose I identify
> >> >> myself primarily as a LibreOffice developer/translator/technical
> >> >> author, and I want to make my work available more broadly.  What
> >> >> should I do?  As I see it, the issues are threefold:  communications,
> >> >> technical integration and license.
> >> >>
> >> >> On the communications side, how do I let AOO know that I've done work
> >> >> that I want to contribute to them?  Sending a note to dev@ or
> posting
> >> >> a patch in AOO's BZ would work, of course.  But both require extra
> >> >> work for the contributor.  Are there any lighter weight ways of doing
> >> >> this?  For example, could we suggest a tag that could be used in git
> >> >> or Bugzilla, for the contributor to indicate their intent that the
> >> >> contribution be made available to AOO as well?   Something like
> >> >> #AOOCONTRIBUTION ?  That would make it easy for us to search for such
> >> >> items.
> >> >>
> >> >> Technical integration -- Due to divergence between the projects, not
> >> >> every LO patch can be applied to AOO automatically.  Some will, but
> >> >> many will require adaptation.  Certainly the contributor could
> >> >> integrate and build their patch for both products.  That would be
> >> >> idea.  But it is asking a lot.  Would we accept less?  Or maybe we
> >> >> sugest areas where technical integration would be easier and require
> >> >> no extra work?  Otherwise, integration would require extra work on
> our
> >> >> end.  But this is not fatal.  In fact it could lead to a set of "easy
> >> >> tasks" for new developers.
> >> >>
> >> >> License -- the differences here are well-known, but are easily
> solved.
> >> >>  A contributor merely needs to state that they are making their patch
> >> >> available to AOO under ALv2.  There are various ways to record this
> >> >> fact publicly.  One is to make the statement in the source system
> (git
> >> >> or BZ).  But that is extra work.  Another way might be submit an iCLA
> >> >> to Apache.  Another way might be to publicly record an intention on
> >> >> our dev@ list, along the lines of, "All of my (future/past)
> >> >> LibreOffice contributions should be considered also contributions
> >> >> under the Apache License 2.0 to the Apache OpenOffice project".
> >> >>
> >> >> Another other ideas?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Rob
> >> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message