On 2/4/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
<snip>
>> In the first case, the reason is that patches should be publicly offered and >> not privately back-channeled, iCLA or no. We don't have svnmongers here. >> "Future" committers should participate publicly. Current committers should >> be committing their own code (making and correcting their own snafus.) >> You learn nothing as a committer having someone else do your commits for >> you, you learn nothing of the community process as a future committer when >> you back channel all your ideas to a specific >> individual/coworker/whatever. > > the problem with your wording is that it does not address > backchanneling but does introduce a new and somewhat irrational and > inexplicable rule Howso? You 'directly' commit your own stuff or you commit stuff first proposed on the 'list' (dev@, bugzilla, jira). Please give me a case where back channel commits are permitted under the proposed commit policy?
the wording does not make clear the intention of the rule for example, i post: "feature X is totally fantastic and i've attached some code that nearly implements it" the consensus is: "that's totally cool: commit it right away". so i do. but the community never knew that the code wasn't mine to commit correct attribution is therefore vital: i need to say "feature X is total fantastic and here some code i found on web/a friend wrote/whatever that nearly implements it". i agree that from a community perspective, this should be tacked on list rather than CTR but the attribution is vital from a legal perspective. <snip>
>> The second case, the reason is that bringing in compatible code that you >> did not write should not be your unilateral action, it should be the >> consensus of the project. > > then all projects (not just podling) should submit new third party > code for IP clearance here No need in some cases. At httpd and apr, for example, they bundle the pcre, expat etc. It was handled correctly, licenses were checked. But the choice to bump expat to 1.95.8 or 2.0.0 is a community decision.
need to check the wording of the board resolution: it's possible that this should have been a community decision but cleared through the incubator <snip>
> what would probably more effective in the long run that arguing about > the rule would be if you could find time to write up some material on > community building and the importance of bringing code to the list to > help explain the meaning of the rule. Yes - the thread's grown too long - it needs summarization. Early in the week I'll start a wiki page to begin the clarifications (whys) and let folks add-on other examples (which are scattered right now throughout this thread.)
+1 - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
