www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: @apache.org commit address requirement (Was: Git hosting is go)
Date Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:35 GMT
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
<jeremy@thomersonfamily.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
>> > IOW, if I receive a pull request or changeset on a public list from a
>> > contributor that does not have a CLA on file, I want to preserve that
>> > changeset exactly as contributed so that the commit log will
>> automatically
>> > refer to that third-party and the hash can be used to search for their
>> > contribution request.  I would only want to modify the changeset
>> > and provide a new log entry for those few cases where the existing
>> > information is not sufficient to satisfy my own CLA. [And, for that
>> > case, we should make it a good practice to include the original changeset
>> > identifier in the new log entry.]
>> Thanks - that's a much clearer justification than keeping the committer
>> intact, which I hadn't gleaned from the earlier conversation.
>> My limited experience with external contributions has been mixed between
>> pull requests being merged and rebased, and I got the impression rebasing
>> was used more often than perhaps it is. I also don't tend to maintain a
>> repo that diverges from the "central" one, so I'm not too concerned about
>> the commit IDs on mine.
> Roy's description above is the exact reason that I am in favor of removing
> the "push hook" (or making it optional per-project).  I would like to see a
> future workflow where:
> 1 - someone emails our dev list saying "please merge commit ABC123 from my
> repo http://example.org/...
> - or -
> 1 - someone creates a pull request on GH, and this gets emailed to our dev
> list
> 2 - we merge their commits in unchanged
> By doing so, we have clear "intent to contribute" with the hash of their
> commit(s).
> Additionally, there's a huge benefit to keeping the commit IDs the same.  I
> just tested this with my own playground repo.  Someone created a GH pull
> request [1].  I did *not* use the GH interface to close it.  Instead I
> manually added their repo and merged their commits (by commit ID).  Then I
> pushed to my repo.  The pull request automatically closed.  This means that
> we can fully integrate ASF projects with GH pull requests without having to
> use the GH UI or use it as canonical, etc.  And, we have very clear "intent
> to contribute" because if they create a pull request on GH, they are
> explicitly asking us to contribute them.  We'll want those archived on our
> hardware (mailing list message would be sufficient), but it's a very easy
> flow that involves little in the way of integration.  I have some ideas to
> make this a very simple process for our committers - but I'll leave that
> for another thread.
> So, can we please remove the current restriction or make it a configuration
> option?
> [1] https://github.com/jthomerson/github-playground/pull/1
> Jeremy

Yup. Removed:


View raw message