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

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - JIRA Patch Conventions


+
Mike Drob 2013-04-24, 03:51
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-24, 13:32
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-24, 14:04
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-24, 15:07
+
John Vines 2013-04-24, 15:08
+
Corey Nolet 2013-04-24, 15:22
Copy link to this message
-
Re: JIRA Patch Conventions
William Slacum 2013-04-24, 17:45
Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more
history and less mystery.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> #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
>
+
Christopher 2013-04-24, 18:04
+
Brian Loss 2013-04-24, 19:28