Hi Robert!
>From a thread a long time ago! This issue has popped up again.
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-775
Did you/How did you ever end up solving the issue for TFS?
You're right, a general solution would be preferable.
I think the workflow around the (re)use of a Work Item would be d
Hi,
first this is the wrong place to askthis should be done on the users
list instead
But i will try answer your question. You have to change your
settings.xml which contains the configuration for repository managers
(your remote repo)...
Take a look into the docs...
Kind regards
I'll leave to you guys. My only suggestion is to make a submission package that
contains:
- references to the repos
- userids those with CLAs on file
- userids of new CLAs along with those CLAs
Send out an email with a pointer to a repo with the same perms as Plexus where
people can add their u
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> There have been companies who have submitted bodies of code to Apache, and
> there have been projects consisting of individuals submitting bodies of
> code. We're not doing anything new. The Apache Incubator can be used for
> this case and th
On 9 September 2014 14:46, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> There have been companies who have submitted bodies of code to Apache,
And those companies usually have a CLA from their contributors or else all
the contributors are employees and the code is thus owned by the company
> and there have been pr
There have been companies who have submitted bodies of code to Apache, and
there have been projects consisting of individuals submitting bodies of code.
We're not doing anything new. The Apache Incubator can be used for this case
and there are likely people there who have dealt with this case an
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I don't think we should attempt to make up new procedures here. Just use
> the standard Apache Incubation process if you're going to move a body of
> code. I don't think it will take long and then all the bases are covered
> and everyone else
I don't think we should attempt to make up new procedures here. Just use the
standard Apache Incubation process if you're going to move a body of code. I
don't think it will take long and then all the bases are covered and everyone
else there can inspect the procedure.
On Sep 9, 2014, at 9:08 A
On 9 September 2014 14:01, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > When every contributors so by him/herself, sure. "submitted by YOU".
> >
>
> Same meaning if Hervé pushed the repo in here and we've all agreed.
The key bit is "we've all agreed" where th
I suggest that we just use the existing Apache Incubation process. The
procedure is already well laid out, and if that is followed then we should be
fine. We don't need to invent anything new here.
On Sep 9, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Stefan Bodewig w
On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> When every contributors so by him/herself, sure. "submitted by YOU".
>
Same meaning if Hervé pushed the repo in here and we've all agreed. Again, this
is how the incubation process works to move a body of code to Apache. Everyone
doesn't re
On 2014-09-09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2014-09-09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Your CLA is sufficient if you, yourself, commit it to an Apache repo. Since
we're planning to push
On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On 9 September 2014 12:42, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
You current CLA is sufficient. You'll the author of
On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2014-09-09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>>> Your CLA is sufficient if you, yourself, commit it to an Apache repo. Since
>>> we're planning to push a repo full of contributions from gith
On 9 September 2014 12:42, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> >> You current CLA is sufficient. You'll the author of the code, you can
> >> contribute it to Apache. We need to find the
On 2014-09-09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Your CLA is sufficient if you, yourself, commit it to an Apache repo. Since
>> we're planning to push a repo full of contributions from github to apache,
>> the CLA is not enough on its own.
> Explain
On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> You current CLA is sufficient. You'll the author of the code, you can
>> contribute it to Apache. We need to find the people on that list who do not
>> have a CLA on file.
>>
>
>
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying, Benson.
When it comes to the actual committers in plexus, there's only one or
two names I haven't seen as frequent and active java community
members. Herve lists "authors", which in the case of git includes all
contributors, even one-line doc
The advantage of the patch approach is that, where the license is
compatible, we can still be ok for "small/trivial/obvious" contributions if
we can't establish contact IIUC
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> I'm trying to avoid having this drift into the full 'IP clearance'
I'm trying to avoid having this drift into the full 'IP clearance' process
which is used for 'significant' contributions, on the grounds that each
individual's contribution isn't all that big. So I'm modeling this on a
patch sent to the mailing list, which requires no CLA and no fancy tracking.
O
20 matches
Mail list logo
