Hi Brian,
it's not linked to a CLA (even if you have a CLA, you may not grant
license to the ASF ;)).
When you are committer on a project, and you commit, in that case, it
references the CLA: it means by committing that you grant license to ASF
(IP clearance). It's implicit.
When you are not committer on a project, and you contribute a patch, you
have to explicitly grant your license to ASF. To do that, you just
mention it by checking "Grant ASF" when attaching the file to the Jira.
Regards
JB
On 08/18/2012 01:03 AM, Brian Topping wrote:
Hi JB,
My apologies, this is still somewhat unclear. Are you saying that someone who
has a CLA on file can contribute a patch using Github pull? I'm asking because
in the past I was told this was not possible, even though I have had a valid
CLA on file for many years.
Clearly this does not affect folks who are committers, and while it seems
rather opaque on what one must do to become a committer, that's another topic
altogether. I'm simply trying to clear things up from my past experience where
my Github pulls were rejected.
Thanks, Brian
On Aug 18, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
Hi Brian,
to be "accepted" by the ASF, a patch has to be Apache granted.
It means that the author accept the ASF rules and IP convenience.
Regarding this, we have two ways:
1/ create a patch (using git diff or pull-request), attach to a Apache Jira, and when
attaching, click on "ASF granted patch"
2/ the other way is to add an header in all file of the patch that mention that
you grant license to ASF.
To be honest, I'm not 100% sure that (2) is valid (I have to ask to the legal
team), that's why (1) is the preferred way as explained in the Apache
guildelines (http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html)
Regards
JB
On 08/18/2012 12:20 AM, Brian Topping wrote:
JB,
I'm kind of confused. When I've submitted patches via Github in the past, I
was told that was not an appropriate means to submit them and I had to generate
patches and put them in Jira.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
Thanks, Brian
On Aug 18, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
Hi Andrei,
We are several (it's my case), to already use git (with git-svn).
For github, we already use it as source, as soon as they contain the correct
grant, compliant with the Apache standard.
There are already lot of developer that use Karaf github mirror. If you take a
look on:
https://github.com/apache/karaf
you can see that we have 28 forks, pull requests, etc.
As you said, we are an Apache project, and so some guidelines. There are still
discussions in the ASF to provide a git service.
So, be sure that we are following all discussions related to git, and we
already know (and use since long time now ;)) that git is much appreciated ;)
Regards
JB
On 08/17/2012 11:49 PM, Andrei Pozolotin wrote:
*Jean-Baptiste, and ALL:
*
I am sure you had chance to convince yourself that
git + fork/pull is better then svn + patch.txt
I understand that you have apache guidelines,
but the switch should be easy:
1) treat github as the primary commit source,
require every git pull to contain an apache one liner
" Grant license to ASF for inclusion in ASF works (as per the Apache
License <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>§5)"
2) replicate git to svn on schedule via hudson/jenkins job,
if github goes bust - just fall back to svn;
3) continue to produce snapshots and releases from svn
above all else, get an easy access to 500K github java developers
who are just eager to start committing to the karaf! :-)
what do you think?
Thank you,
Andrei
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
