> On Apr 8, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> I suggest:
>> a) Changing the language of such banners to "Pull Requests Welcome"
>> (because "forking" can be misunderstood and due to our fierce
>> corporate independence principle)
>> b) Asking our projects to add a
HI,
> I suggest:
> a) Changing the language of such banners to "Pull Requests Welcome"
> (because "forking" can be misunderstood and due to our fierce
> corporate independence principle)
> b) Asking our projects to add a "rel=nofollow" attribute on the link to GitHub
> c) Asking our projects to
There's probably a designer who can make this into a feather or a
octofeather...
http://tholman.com/github-corners/
Martijn
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:05 PM Harbs wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
>
> If there’s agreement on this, I’d suggest someone come up with some CSS
> which can be popped
Sounds good to me.
If there’s agreement on this, I’d suggest someone come up with some CSS which
can be popped into project sites similar to what GitHub offers for their
banners. (I’m not very good at CSS myself…) ;-)
Harbs
> On Mar 31, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
>
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:27 AM Harbs wrote:
> ...The compromise which seemed acceptable to most in that thread seems to be
> to remove “GitHub” from the link...
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 3:46 PM John D. Ament wrote:
> ...The problem is that "fork" means two different things, and that some
>
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 8:57 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I also wonder if opinions might have changed in the 5 years since that
> discussion. In that time, GitHub has only become more ubiquitous and more
> adopted by many Apache projects.
>
> Probably more a discussion for the board or
Sure. I understand that. I have no issue with what happened with the graduating
project. (hence the new thread) Congrats on that!!! :-)
I’ll leave this here for a couple of days to give folks a chance to respond. If
folks think that this should continue on board@ then we can do that.
Cheers,
Hi,
I suggest you take this up with the board, as it is perhaps time to revisit it.
The trademark email BTW was directly related to this graduation and the GitHub
link, the project went further and removed company logos from another page as
well.
Thanks,
Justin
FWIW, this is the only thing I found on (private) press@
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/439a22a02f6200a106e4d209f401d98f9223c72df08ba8ea1d07f7ba%401418715959%40%3Cpress.apache.org%3E
The discussion on trademarks is about general sponsor links. As far as I can
tell, it has nothing to do with “Fork Me”.
I read the thread on board@ and I looked at the notes in the agenda from
2014_12_17.
I don’t see a consensus that Fork Me is not allowed. I do see a consensus that
it’s not
Ah, thanks Justin. Sorry I didn't notice the board action and the
recommendation from trademarks.
I don't think there's much left to discuss. The board and trademarks
have made their policy clear. We (the incubator) should make podlings
aware of the policy.
I think "fork me on GitHub" is less
Hi,
> I read the board@ thread and, unless I missed it, there was no edict from the
> board to not say “fork me on GitHub”.
Did you note the board action and discussion in the board reports? Sally made
some alternative mock up to use (2015-01-21) I’m not sure what happened to
those. There
I read the board@ thread and, unless I missed it, there was no edict from the
board to not say “fork me on GitHub”.
Therefore it’s down to projects’ discretion how they promote themselves.
(Consistent with branding policy etc.)
Unless and until the board speaks I don’t think we need to tell
I was wondering what the best place for this discussion would be. I couldn’t
really think of a better place than incubator.
I considered starting the discussion on board@ or members@, but I didn’t want
another private discussion. Not sure about infra and I don’t know how many
folks follow that
Hi,
> I also wonder if opinions might have changed in the 5 years since that
> discussion. In that time, GitHub has only become more ubiquitous and more
> adopted by many Apache projects.
Probably more a discussion for the board or Infra (as they own ASF distribution
policy) than the
The problem is that "fork" means two different things, and that some
members seem to be interpreting fork in the sense of a project level fork -
meaning creating a new community out of an existing project. Whereas the
fork on github is really about raising pull requests Paul is mentioning.
We
I would think it is almost ubiquitous now for developers to know that the
easiest way for them to create a PR for instance is to fork the project
(the source code if you like) on Github.
It seems sensible to encourage the use of "Fork me on Github" as it
substantially lowers the barrier of
Thanks for the link to the board@ list. I agree with you that it’s a shame the
discussion was on a private list.
Yes. It seems that the concern of some is that link is an “ad”.
It seems to me that the primary purpose for the link is to make contributing
easier and the “advertisement” is
Hi,
If you can, I suggest people read this board@ thread [1]. It a pity that
conversation didn’t happen in more public space. Also note the board action
item that resulted from this and that the “Fork me on Github” ribbon is no
longer on the front page of the project in question.
Also
Hi,
In this particular case it could be seen as a) advertising a commercial entity
on an ASF’s project front page (using their marketing slogan) b) encouraging
users (who may not understand the consequences) to use unreleased code rather
than using the officially released downloads.
I think
This is not the first time “Fork Me” came up, but I don’t think there’s been a
clear consensus on the topic.
I think it’s an important topic, so I’m starting a new discussion.
It seems to me that the concern with using “Fork Me” is that it’s somehow
promoting unofficial releases. Please
21 matches
Mail list logo
