Hi Marvin, > For instance, there's a fellow named Edward Betts who's credited 4 times in > the SVN logs. Edward submitted several test cases which exposed low level > bugs. However, as hard as he worked on those test cases, they were never > integrated into the code base, because the test cases themselves were all high > level; the final commits typically include either a test I wrote for the > failing lower level component or no test at all.
If you didn't integrate his patch, then what's the problem? > > I don't think we need to contact Edward; if he doesn't participate in the > grant, there are no commits that need to be backed out. However, since I > didn't clearly differentiate in the commit messages between when a patch was > integrated into the code base (requiring participation in the grant) versus > when someone simply reported a bug, I thought it would be worthwhile to enter > that information into the public record. Entering = fine. Waiting on them to reply or confirm that you entered it = waste of time, IMO. > > [...] > Bugzilla #43835: > Added some cool new feature. > Submitted by: John Doe <john.doe.at.null.org> > > Basically, names should be listed in SVN logs if and only if there is a > copyright interest. For moral credit, the mailing list archives suffice. > > (I thought I'd seen a note about that somewhere in the dev documentation, but > I can't seem to track it down right now.) FYI, this isn't a rule set in stone -- most of the time in SVN logs I just say: - fix for JIRA-ISSUE-ID <short desc> Then, in JIRA I always make sure to resolve with: "Patch contributed by Person X and applied in rY. Thanks Person X!" The combination of JIRA + SVN is fine as well. In short, credit the person, but there is not just one way to credit them. >> OK, when you are ready let me know. I think having someone besides you do >> the import is critical (remember: single point of failure?) :) > > Agreed. > > I believe that as a matter of formal process, the Incubator PMC has the > binding vote on accepting the software grant. However, I think we should also > consider holding a lazy-consensus vote of the Lucy PPMC as to whether we > accept the grant. Nobody else on the PPMC is going to be reviewing the commit > history like I have been, but as a collective we should be making an effort to > follow along with the process. Hmmm, I'm thinking overkill again. The Lucy PPMC and IPMC mentors watching it can preside over this import and it's a good sign of community growing to follow the SGA process, and then to evolve the resultant code base into something that's releasable under the Incubator guidelines. We don't need a formal vote on this. The vote will come when we try and release the resultant downstream Apache Lucy product. > >> I'll throw my name into the hat to svn import it, since I worked with Joe S. >> to get it done on OODT. Any other mentors want to do it, just let me know >> and I'll stand down. > > This step is pretty much mechanical, though, right? It's just verifying the > MD5, unpacking the tarball into an "import" directory, doing a big "svn add" > and committing everything. In the proposal, we mention that the code source > will be a "snapshot" from the KinoSearch repository -- we're not planning to > import the entire SVN history. Right, it's mechanical, all the easier for a mentor to do it since we're busy :) If it was more than mechanical I might not have time *grin*. +1 to pulling in a snapshot. Fine by me. > OK, then how about we just scratch the email plan and err on the side of > putting people into the grant if they supplied any IP that was integrated into > the project? We're only talking about 10 people or so anyway, since most > people who made drive-by contributions went on to make bigger ones later. > > If I understand correctly, if some grant participants fail to send in their > SGA forms, we just have to reverse their contributions before we can make a > release -- it doesn't invalidate the whole grant. However, since that > assertion only appears in the Mentor documentation, I'm not 100% certain of > that... Yep, set some realistic expectations. 1. if they don't reply in a week, reverse their code out of the code drop. 2. if they do reply in a week, include them in the grant. 3. after a week, make the snapshot, get the SGA signed and work with a mentor to submit the SGA to the Apache secretary. Then, code drop, and away we go. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
