Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more history and less mystery.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <cno...@texeltek.com> wrote: > #2 as well. > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I too am in favor of the patch history being available. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi > > <billie.rina...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming > that > > > we don't need ICLAs for patches. > > > > > > > Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on > > > > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is > > > > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people > > > > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to > ask > > > > casual patchers for ICLAs. > > > On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Accumulo Devs, > > > >>> > > > >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching > > > updated > > > >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the > > advantage > > > of > > > >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch > > > was, > > > >>> especially in case of back porting issues. > > > >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up > > > identifier > > > >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, > and > > > >>> might > > > >>> be useful in other ways. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have > a > > > >>> strong > > > >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean > > > towards > > > >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email > > > notification. > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree I would like consistency. I lean towards 2 also, but I > do > > > not > > > >> have a good reason, its just my preference. We should probably put > > > >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch. I have seen other > > > >> projects do this. > > > >> > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I > > > >>> remember > > > >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation, > > so > > > >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA? > > > >> > > > > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to > > the > > > > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe > > the > > > > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and > not > > > > having the jira checkbox). > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Mike > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Corey Nolet > Senior Software Engineer > TexelTek, inc. > [Office] 301.880.7123 > [Cell] 410-903-2110 >
