+1 to the THANKS file. On 5/4/13 6:58 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
>(Copied from elsewhere...) > >I've been involved in similar discussions about what to do with pull >requests on GitHub, etc. I think the general consensus was that as long as >there is a reasonable indication that the work was being contributed to >the >project, then we are okay to include it. i.e. If somebody submits a PR to >the CloudStack mirror, then we can include that if we want to, without >doing any other checks. But if we spot a PR on a Citrix GitHub repository, >that we could apply to CloudStack, we need to contact the original author, >to make sure we have permission. The key being that we must establish >reasonable intent. And I think we have that in the scenario you describe. > >In fact, we used to have a checkbox in JIRA that you used to have to tick >to indicate when you were uploading that indicated were giving permission >for the project to include your work. We removed that checkbox a while >ago. I believe we took that action, because there was consensus that >attaching a patch established intent. > >As for authorship. From a legal/policy perspective, author information >should be kept out of source files. There are various reasons for this. >But >the gist is that it can give the impression that individual people "own" >the various bits of code. And obviously, this can discourage >participation. >This is why all Apache source files state copyright as "The Apache >Software >Foundation", meaning "the lot of us", i.e. shared. > >Now, I can appreciate that PO files might be a bit different. I took a >look >at a few of them, and I don't see a problem from a policy perspective, >especially if these is standard meta-data, or helps the translation >effort. >Now understanding how translations take place, I would ask: might having >the last translator name in there discourage other translators from >participating? As you mention, these files are machine generated, so my >guess is: no. > >So, I think all that remains is a stylistic question. How do we want to >attribute the hard work and dedication of our translation team? I know >that >with code, this is often done with an Author tag in Git, or in the >comment, >or what have you. But there are other options. What about a THANKSfile? > >On Apache CouchDB, our THANKS file is actually maintained in two ways. For >anything that does not come in with an Author tag in Git, we put it in the >file manually. For anything in Git, we actually automate that. > >See: > >https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=blob_plain;f=boots >trap;hb=HEAD > >Grep for "THANKS" to see the code that updates the file. This is done when >we are preparing a release artefact. Which might not work for us on >CloudStack, as, presently, our release artefacts are pristine copies of >our >Git repository. But we might consider making a script that updates THANKS, >and then checking in the changes. > > >On 27 April 2013 01:00, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >> Why don't we ask them their preference (keeping dev@ in the loop as >>well) >> >> --David >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> > >> >>>> As such - I do not see a material difference in how the projects >>that >> >>>> are already using translate.a.o and how we function. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> Do we bring it up to legal-discuss ? I am happy to do so. >> >>> >> >> >> >> What question would we ask? >> >> I see two possible questions, let me know if that isn't the case. >> >> >> >> If the question is 'Is accepting contributions from a plethora of >> >> contributors to a project specific instance an acceptable way of >>doing >> >> business' I think the answer is obvious that translate.a.o does >> >> exactly that mechanism and there seem to be no issues from a process >> >> standpoint. >> >> >> >> If the question is 'Can the Transifex Apache CloudStack l10n projects >> >> serve as an official contribution point' - I personally am >>comfortable >> >> saying that the message is currently clear that we treat them as >> >> official. I also don't see a problem with doing so. Is this a point >>of >> >> contention with anyone else? Is there a problem there that I am not >> >> seeing? >> >> >> >> Is there another question? >> > >> > I am fine with your statements and have no questions for >>legal-discuss. >> > >> > I was merely bringing it up in the open to make sure people knew about >> it. >> > >> > The only issue left IMHO is how we ack the authors of translations in >> git ? >> > >> > -sebastien >> > >> > > > >-- >NS
