quickstep-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Update on the Quickstep project
Date Tue, 31 May 2016 18:27:24 GMT
There is already a definitive answer: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156>

But I agree with you, Spark’s process is a good one for Quickstep to adopt.


> On May 31, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
>> Roman,
>> Requiring the contributor to log a JIRA makes a lot of sense, and a lot of projects
do that.
>> But from an IP hygiene standpoint, my understanding is that it is sufficient that
the contributor
>> has created a github pull request to a project under https://github.com/apache. Just
>> attaching a patch to an Apache JIRA, that demonstrates intent to contribute. Is my
understanding correct?
> Let me put it this way: I don't think a pure GH workflow will be OK by ASF:
>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-249
> But! Once we consider GH notifications being pushed to our mailing
> lists it becomes
> a gray area in my view. One way to resolve it is to push the issue via
> ASF's VP of Legal
> for an authoritative answer (see one of my last comments on the above JIRA).
> What I'm suggesting here is, in a way, a cop out, but a productive one ;-)
> IOW, if what Spark folks have come up with jives well with Quickstep community
> lets just adopt that approach and move on without being a poster child community
> to go resolve it with ASF's VP of Legal.
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> P.S. Sorry I couldn't give you a 100% iron clad answer.

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