Leo Simons wrote: > Gang, > > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:30:53PM +0100, Tim Ellison wrote: >> Mark Hindess wrote: >>> On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Mark Hindess wrote: >>>>> Daniel, >>>>> >>>>> I've just contributed a JIRA, >>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471 >>>>> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi. (The jsr14 >>>>> version. Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches >>>>> for the tests next.) >>>> We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite, >>>> I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473 >>>> (I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-) >>>> so please take that test suite. >>> Thanks for the heads-up. I just saw the JIRA messages. (I notice it >>> includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution. But >>> I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution >>> rather than a new contribution? That is we don't need to wait for >>> another vote.) >> I disagree -- i think the simplest thing would be for Daniel to submit >> the delta rather than another version of the original contribution. > > A derivative work of something under the apache license is not automatically > under the apache license. Similarly, a derivative work to which multiple > people contributed is still a bulk contribution. > > Our policy currently says > > "Any software or other contribution that was not created explicitly for > Apache Harmony *in* the Apache Harmony project is considered to be a > 'Bulk Contribution'. " > > the emphasis on *in* is there for a reason. What we identify here (among other > things) is a mode of operation where various parties do their development work > in isolation and then every now and then submit some patches. > > When I see a sentence like "We've been working on [foo], I've contributed > that [here]", to me that makes it clear that what is under discussion is a > Bulk Contribution (work by multiple parties contributed by a single party), > and > the minimum amount of paperwork to me seems to be the bulk contribution > checklist (if all the previously sent-in paperwork such as CLAs and grants and > ACQs can be considered applicable to the new contribution).
I understand. That's why I asked Daniel to resubmit just the delta to the original contribution so it can be accepted as work within the project. > The only way to avoid this kind of paperwork is to have all the individuals > that work on this stuff interact within harmony directly so that it is > unambigous that any identifiable set of work was produced *here*. Put another > way: contributors to the ASF are individuals, not companies, when there's > doubt, > do the paperwork. Agreed. Small frequent updates to the code are good. > Now, we could of course start a discussion on whether we should change our > policies, but until we do, lets please all follow it very very carefully. I don't think we need to go there right now. > Or did I misunderstand something? In that case, can someone help me get > un-confused? Daniel has restructured code and made some enhancements. He submitted the 'results' of that work rather than the description/patches, so we asked him to resubmit. I think that works. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]