[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword
|
Yup. We use the "contributed" keyword to help us fill out the IP logs.
For us, a bug is flagged as contributed if it contains a patch (or inline
comment containing a fix), from someone who is not an Eclipse Project
committer, that gets applied (even with edits) against something we ship.
As well, if we believe we are going to apply it at some point, but aren't
going to do it now because we are at the end of a release cycle, for
example, it can still be flagged and the bug left open. I check for this
case when I review the bugs while building our project logs. The milestone
is also helpful here.
In general, the committer who applies the patch should set the keyword, but
in any case, the name of the committer who applies the patch is also
required for the IP process, so the committer generally adds a "patch was
applied" comment to the bug too.
McQ.
"Mike
Milinkovich"
<mike.milinkovich To
@eclipse.org> <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc
eclipse-pmc-bounc
es@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject
RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed
keyword
07/06/2007 03:17
PM
Please respond to
mike.milinkovich@
eclipse.org;
Please respond to
eclipse-pmc@eclip
se.org
Ummm?.I have no idea what the ?contributed? keyword does. My wild-ass guess
was that it was something the Eclipse project used to auto-generate their
IP log. But I really don?t know.
From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Harley
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:47 PM
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword
Seems to me that part of the issue is that there are two mutually
incompatible reasons to recognize contributions.
One, exemplified by McQ's email, is that we want to thank and acknowledge
people for contributing outside of what they normally work on. This reason
tends to the inclusive: the more kudos the better.
The other, exemplified by Mike Milinkovich's email, is that (if I correctly
understand) the 'contributed' keyword triggers an IP review. This reason
tends to the exclusive: the review is potentially time-consuming and
expensive so we only want to do it if absolutely necessary.
IANAL, but in the second case it seems that as long as someone has signed
(and not subsequently revoked) a committer agreement on any component, we
want to NOT mark their contributions as "contributed".
So, I think maybe we need to get clear on which of these goals we're trying
to achieve, before worrying too much about the means.
-walter
From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff McAffer
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:16 AM
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; emo@xxxxxxxxxxx;
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx; license@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword
The issue really is the scope of "project". In popular palance "project"
is often used to talk about "sub-projects". Can you clarify your usage?
For clarity on our part, we are using project == top-level project.
A secondary point is that the Eclipse project sub-projects generally manage
commit rights on a per component basis. This mindset is pervasive within
the team. it is how unix group membership is managed, how votes are done,
... As a result, there is confusion for people as to who is "in" and who
is "out". I'm not saying that things should be any different, just
pointing out why there is confusion. Perhaps this can be clarified by the
IP guidelines.
Jeff _______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
