On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> He says should, not must. Mailing lists are contribution > mechanisms as well (per the license), so patches submitted > there which aren't marked "Not a contribution" are acceptable. > Jira's checkbox is the belt and suspenders approach. > The original question didn't mention mailing lists. It didn't mention any specifics at all. I reported the practice on the projects I'm familiar with. In some of them, JIRA is the critical mechanism for patch review -- even for people with commit access! In others, it's just the standard means for people to submit patches. JIRA makes it harder to miss a patch. A JIRA with a patch sits there where you can get it on a list of JIRAs that are unresolved. A patch just sent to a mailing list might just disappear into the ether. However, I thank Joe for pointing out that I was careful to avoid stating a requirement when I didn't know that one existed. I've never hung out on an ASF project that (still) used email patches as the common practice, so I was unaware of it. So, if you asked me, I'd say that using JIRA or BZ items is good organizational hygiene, giving more people visibility into the process and making it harder to drop a good contribution on the floor -- but if you have a working system involving an official mailing list, you have a working system. On the other hand, I think that we all agree that a patch mailed by personal email to a committer who commits it is not a good thing. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 9:43:09 PM > > Subject: Re: Accepting patches in a podling > > > > So each patch /must/ go via JIRA and get some checkbox filled? > > Seriously? > > > > 1. Over at Subversion, the practice has been to just say thankyou and > > commit the patches. A few times, with large-scale contributions (eg: > > someone sent us an SQL backend), we have required filing an ICLA first > > --- but that has been needed VERY rarely. > > > > 2. So patch submitters get sent to JIRA just so they can /fill a > > checkbox/? Never mind what the license says about submissions to the > > mailing lists, why not simply ask them to write > > > > "I license the patch attached herewith under the Apache License, > version > >2.0" > > > > > > at the top of their email? That's much less effort for them than filing > > a JIRA. And imposing less work on patch submitters is Good. > > > > Benson Margulies wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 20:58:06 -0400: > > > All patches should be attached to JIRAs with the 'grant' checkbox > checked. > > > Only if they are large do you then have to contemplate asking for a > CLA and > > > going through the clearance process. Or so I understand it. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:55 PM, David Lutterkort <lut...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > What is the offical process for accepting patches from non-comitters > in > > > > a podling ? Is it enough to insist that contributors that are not > > > > committers have a CLA on file or do I also have to make them file > each > > > > patch in jira ? > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
