Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> JIRA Patch Conventions


Copy link to this message
-
Re: JIRA Patch Conventions
#2 as well.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming that
> > we don't need ICLAs for patches.
> >
> > > Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
> > > ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
> > > licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
> > > an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to ask
> > > casual patchers for ICLAs.
> > On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  Accumulo Devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
> > updated
> > >>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
> advantage
> > of
> > >>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
> > was,
> > >>> especially in case of back porting issues.
> > >>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
> > identifier
> > >>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments, and
> > >>> might
> > >>> be useful in other ways.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>  I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have a
> > >>> strong
> > >>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
> > towards
> > >>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
> > notification.
> > >>>
> > >>>  I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I do
> > not
> > >> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
> > >> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
> > >> projects do this.
> > >>
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>  As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
> > >>> remember
> > >>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation,
> so
> > >>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>>  Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
> > >>
> > > I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to
> the
> > > ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe
> the
> > > ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and not
> > > having the jira checkbox).
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  Mike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>

--
Corey Nolet
Senior Software Engineer
TexelTek, inc.
[Office] 301.880.7123
[Cell] 410-903-2110