On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Hi all, > > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes > in Jira. > > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way > around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.) > > Should we revisit our policy here?
At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub. Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress. As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be said for other processes as well like Jira config.) It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine. Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable. My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead. Mark > > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
