On 23 September 2013 14:32, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In order to accept patches into any Apache Foundation project there must > be > > EITHER a signed ICLA on file from the person submitting the change OR a > > clear indication of intent to contribute the code to the Apache > Foundation. > > > > For small or quick changes signing a ICLA is overkill and too large a > > barrier. > > > > The question then is, how do you indicate the intent to contribute the > code > > to the Apache Foundation? > > > > 1. You could clearly state on the pull request that the changes are your > > own work and you are licensing them under the Apache License version 2.0 > to > > the Apache Foundation. > > 2. You could create or update an existing issue in the project's issue > > tracker indicating that the patch is available as a pull request that you > > have authored and are licensing to the Apache Foundation under the Apache > > License version 2.0. > > > > The latter (i.e. just create or update an issue in the issue tracker and > > give a link to the pull request) is usually the easiest way to go. > > This has been discussed on a couple lists already. The consensus on the > other projects I've been involved in is issuing a pull request from github > is a clear enough intent to contribute. (as long as the pull request is > properly forwarded to the right dev list which I think the mailer is setup > OK for that now.) Several projects are grabbing fixes via pull requests. >
Do they have matching issues in their issue tracker? It has seemed a fairly clear intent to me that pull requests are intended for up-stream (wherever that upstream is) so I am ok if the ASF consensus opinion is that pull requests against the apache org repos are an indication of intent. On the other hand a three year old pull request may not have been created at the time when this understanding was in play, so if you are the owner of that three year old pull request, you could always signal intent a bit more clearly. Additionally, if the originator of a pull request includes in the pull request message that the request is intended for submission to the ASF then it's absolutely clear about the provenance making it super easy for a committer to merge the request. My comments were about how to make your pull request more likely to get merged... which is basically: 1. Does it have tests that fail when the bug is not fixed? 2. Does it have tests that pass when the bug is fixed? 3. Does it leave code formatting alone except for the lines that are touched? 4. Does it apply cleanly? 5. Is there a bug ID associated with the bug? 6. Is it super obvious that we can accept the contribution? You could have a patch/pull request that meets none of the above and it might get applied... if you meet all 6 then your request will be much more likely to get picked up. > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > On 23 September 2013 06:24, ryenus <rye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Would anyone be taking care of the pull requests on github: > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pulls > >> > >> I just made 2 but saw there're pull requests open for years. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > >> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
