Mike Drob 2013-04-24, 03:51
Keith Turner 2013-04-24, 13:32
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.
>> 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).
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-24, 15:07
John Vines 2013-04-24, 15:08
Corey Nolet 2013-04-24, 15:22
William Slacum 2013-04-24, 17:45
Christopher 2013-04-24, 18:04
Brian Loss 2013-04-24, 19:28