Re: New page: Contributing Code
Andrea Pescetti wrote on Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:01:03 +0100: > Rob Weir wrote: >> OK. Feel free to update the language. I think we agree on the facts. >> It is just a matter of making it clear. > > Done at http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html (first > bullet item). Feel free to review/modify again if further clarifications > are needed. > +1, looks good to me. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New page: Contributing Code
Rob Weir wrote: OK. Feel free to update the language. I think we agree on the facts. It is just a matter of making it clear. Done at http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html (first bullet item). Feel free to review/modify again if further clarifications are needed. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> >> For example, the page currently says, "The code must be under the >> Apache License 2.0. Any dependencies must also be under that license >> or a similar permissive license." >> This is a fair piece of advise, but we know that the truth is far more >> complicated. > > > Yes, and I agree that this complexity is already documented in the Apache > policy and needn't be explained here: here we are presenting contributions > from the developer's point of view; the project's point of view (i.e., how > to use contributions effectively) may be more complex and involve coding > standards and other best practices, but this is a further step. > > >> Instead of talking directly about the license, we could say something >> like this: >> "-- The code must be contributed by or with permission of the original >> author(s) of the code. Dependencies on 3rd party libraries should be >> discussed on the dev list, to see how these can be brought into >> conformance with ASF policy." > > > I think it's fine to still mention that the contributed code must be under > ALv2 or compatible licensing terms: this is a prerequisite. But I like the > more flexible phrasing about dependencies. > > The solver is a good example: OpenOffice already had the solver, but it was > relying on incompatible libraries; and the project didn't rewrite the > solver, it merely modified it to work with compatible libraries. A similar > scenario would be considered if we receive some outstanding contribution > having incompatible dependencies, so it's good to rectify this. > OK. Feel free to update the language. I think we agree on the facts. It is just a matter of making it clear. -Rob > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New page: Contributing Code
Rob Weir wrote: For example, the page currently says, "The code must be under the Apache License 2.0. Any dependencies must also be under that license or a similar permissive license." This is a fair piece of advise, but we know that the truth is far more complicated. Yes, and I agree that this complexity is already documented in the Apache policy and needn't be explained here: here we are presenting contributions from the developer's point of view; the project's point of view (i.e., how to use contributions effectively) may be more complex and involve coding standards and other best practices, but this is a further step. Instead of talking directly about the license, we could say something like this: "-- The code must be contributed by or with permission of the original author(s) of the code. Dependencies on 3rd party libraries should be discussed on the dev list, to see how these can be brought into conformance with ASF policy." I think it's fine to still mention that the contributed code must be under ALv2 or compatible licensing terms: this is a prerequisite. But I like the more flexible phrasing about dependencies. The solver is a good example: OpenOffice already had the solver, but it was relying on incompatible libraries; and the project didn't rewrite the solver, it merely modified it to work with compatible libraries. A similar scenario would be considered if we receive some outstanding contribution having incompatible dependencies, so it's good to rectify this. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On 5 March 2013 19:20, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti > wrote: > > On 13/02/2013 Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >> For example, I've seen it written that to > >> contribute to AOO means that you must transfer ownership of the code > >> to teh ASF. Of course, this is not true. You retain the ownership > > > > > > I added a sentence about this to > > http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > > since this is a common misconception indeed. The rest of the page is > really > > informative, it deserves publicity! > > > > Thanks. I'm hoping it does just that -- clear up any confusion. > > However, it is hard to be both concise and accurate. As we know the > ASF policy in this area is nuanced, and a contribution is more the > start of a process than a single instant event. > > For example, the page currently says, "The code must be under the > Apache License 2.0. Any dependencies must also be under that license > or a similar permissive license." > > This is a fair piece of advise, but we know that the truth is far more > complicated. There can be some non-permissive dependencies, in binary > form, with some licenses, for example. But if we had to explain it > completely the page would unnecessarily duplicate what already exists > elsewhere on apache.org. And unfortunately what already exists is > inscrutable to the typical reader of that page. > > But I did recently think about an alternative way of expressing the > requirement, which might show the flexibility inherent in the process. > Instead of talking directly about the license, we could say something > like this: > > "-- The code must be contributed by or with permission of the original > author(s) of the code. Dependencies on 3rd party libraries should be > discussed on the dev list, to see how these can be brought into > conformance with ASF policy." > +1 that is a very clear formulation. I should I assume read libraries/tools. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > Regards, > > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 13/02/2013 Rob Weir wrote: >> >> For example, I've seen it written that to >> contribute to AOO means that you must transfer ownership of the code >> to teh ASF. Of course, this is not true. You retain the ownership > > > I added a sentence about this to > http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > since this is a common misconception indeed. The rest of the page is really > informative, it deserves publicity! > Thanks. I'm hoping it does just that -- clear up any confusion. However, it is hard to be both concise and accurate. As we know the ASF policy in this area is nuanced, and a contribution is more the start of a process than a single instant event. For example, the page currently says, "The code must be under the Apache License 2.0. Any dependencies must also be under that license or a similar permissive license." This is a fair piece of advise, but we know that the truth is far more complicated. There can be some non-permissive dependencies, in binary form, with some licenses, for example. But if we had to explain it completely the page would unnecessarily duplicate what already exists elsewhere on apache.org. And unfortunately what already exists is inscrutable to the typical reader of that page. But I did recently think about an alternative way of expressing the requirement, which might show the flexibility inherent in the process. Instead of talking directly about the license, we could say something like this: "-- The code must be contributed by or with permission of the original author(s) of the code. Dependencies on 3rd party libraries should be discussed on the dev list, to see how these can be brought into conformance with ASF policy." Regards, -Rob > Regards, > Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On 13/02/2013 Rob Weir wrote: For example, I've seen it written that to contribute to AOO means that you must transfer ownership of the code to teh ASF. Of course, this is not true. You retain the ownership I added a sentence about this to http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html since this is a common misconception indeed. The rest of the page is really informative, it deserves publicity! Regards, Andrea.
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM, janI wrote: > +1 I like the page. Is it also worth publishing somehow as a blog so > outsiders notice it. > > I think you have a typo near the end "VCS revision". > Thanks, I fixed that, the typo Don noted and a few other spelling errors I noticed. I agree that this could be a good blog topic. There is quite a bit of misinformation out there. For example, I've seen it written that to contribute to AOO means that you must transfer ownership of the code to teh ASF. Of course, this is not true. You retain the ownership (copyright) and merely agree to license your contribution. Even stranger I've seen some poor confused souls say that if you contribute to Apache you transfer ownership of the code over to Oracle! -Rob > Have a nice day. > rgds > Jan I. > > > On 13 February 2013 15:52, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI wrote: >> > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir wrote: >> > >> >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and >> >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple >> >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. >> >> >> >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing >> >> code on a new page: >> >> >> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html >> >> >> >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. >> >> >> > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large >> > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: >> > >> >> OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: >> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html >> >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >> >> >> > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as >> a >> > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can >> > achieve the best result". >> > >> > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small >> code >> > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a >> > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has >> > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to >> talk. >> > >> > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is >> > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). >> > >> > rgds >> > Jan I. >> > >> > >> > >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> -Rob >> >> >>
Re: New page: Contributing Code
+1 I like the page. Is it also worth publishing somehow as a blog so outsiders notice it. I think you have a typo near the end "VCS revision". Have a nice day. rgds Jan I. On 13 February 2013 15:52, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI wrote: > > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir wrote: > > > >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and > >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple > >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. > >> > >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing > >> code on a new page: > >> > >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > >> > >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. > >> > > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large > > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: > > > > OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: > > http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > > > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as > a > > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can > > achieve the best result". > > > > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small > code > > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a > > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has > > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to > talk. > > > > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is > > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). > > > > rgds > > Jan I. > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Rob > >> >
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: > > http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html "For larges codebases" -> "For large codebases" Don
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI wrote: > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir wrote: > >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. >> >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing >> code on a new page: >> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html >> >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. >> > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: > OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Regards, -Rob > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can > achieve the best result". > > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. > > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). > > rgds > Jan I. > > > >> Thanks, >> >> -Rob >>
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On 12 February 2013 23:55, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI wrote: > > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir wrote: > > > >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and > >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple > >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. > >> > >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing > >> code on a new page: > >> > >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > >> > >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. > >> > > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large > > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: > > > > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as > a > > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can > > achieve the best result". > > > > Maybe there is a better of way of phrasing this, but we really don't > want code dumps. In other words, we're not interested in having a new > large body of code to maintain. A large code base requires developers > to maintain it. If it is a code dump then this dilutes our attention > on the existing code base. So new large contributions really need to > come along with developers to help maintain the code. > I understand you better now, and agree. Someone dumping 100.000 lines on our doorstep and disapearing is not an attractive situation. Just a side remark, I thought that was pretty much what happened with symphony, and now pick pieces and integrate. Actually I think your wording above, it much better"if you come with a large chunk of code, we need you as well" :-) > > > > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small > code > > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a > > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has > > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to > talk. > > > > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is > > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). > > > > Maybe I need to define "code dump" then. I don't think what you are > doing is "code dump", It is large, but I assume that you don't just > contribute it and disappear. > Maybe it is really wording, I dont like negative wording on a page where we try to welcome people. But I agree to the idea of taken over a large chunk of code, requires the commitment of the developer as well. > > So help integrating is one part. For a bug fix is a smaller > enhancement, maybe that is all we need. But suppose someone wants to > contribute something large, like a complete new application as part of > the suite? > > Let's see if we agree on that general idea. If so I can find a > clearer way of expressing it. > 1) bug fixes, small things, you current wording is quite ok. 2) bigger things, needs documentation and commitment to help with integration 3) large things (your 100.000 lines) needs ongoing commitment from the developers, otherwise we cannot maintain it. I know that is not the correct wording, but I hope we can agree of the idea...and then please positive wording :-) Have a nice day. Jan I. Ps. I dont intent to disapear, this is way too much fun. > > -Rob > > > rgds > > Jan I. > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Rob > >> >
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI wrote: > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir wrote: > >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. >> >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing >> code on a new page: >> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html >> >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. >> > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: > > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can > achieve the best result". > Maybe there is a better of way of phrasing this, but we really don't want code dumps. In other words, we're not interested in having a new large body of code to maintain. A large code base requires developers to maintain it. If it is a code dump then this dilutes our attention on the existing code base. So new large contributions really need to come along with developers to help maintain the code. > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. > > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). > Maybe I need to define "code dump" then. I don't think what you are doing is "code dump", It is large, but I assume that you don't just contribute it and disappear. So help integrating is one part. For a bug fix is a smaller enhancement, maybe that is all we need. But suppose someone wants to contribute something large, like a complete new application as part of the suite? Let's see if we agree on that general idea. If so I can find a clearer way of expressing it. -Rob > rgds > Jan I. > > > >> Thanks, >> >> -Rob >>
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir wrote: > We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and > best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple > projects, e.g., AOO and LO. > > I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing > code on a new page: > > http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > > Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can achieve the best result". When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). rgds Jan I. > Thanks, > > -Rob >
