[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword
|
My apologies if I'm intruding, but hopefully this EMO perspective will help
the conversation.
If an individual has the paperwork in place to be a committer on a project
and writes code which is committed to the project's repository then no
further documentation is required. Regardless of whether they are "active"
or "inactive" or work for their former employer. As long as their paperwork
is in place and up-to-date, they are a committer.
This would also apply if a committer writes some code which is committed to
another component within the same project by another committer.
If a committer writes some code which is committed to another project for
which they do not have commit rights (presumably by a second committer),
then they should be documented as a contributor, as commit rights are scoped
to a project. Basically we just want some housekeeping in place so we can
track the origin of the code. Yes, this may mean that a CQ is required :-(
In the case of a contributor, we don't differentiate between doc, code, XML,
whatever. If a contribution is made that ends up somewhere in CVS, then it
should be documented in the IP log and/or whatever mechanism your project is
using. So the formal definition of what a contribution is not based on what
the type of artifact is, it is based on whether copywritable material ends
up in CVS or SVN.
That said, as a practical matter release reviews focus on the copywritten
materials which actually ship in a release. So patches to (for example) web
projects receive less scrutiny and are lower risk. So I believe the PMC has
some discretion there if the cost/benefit trade-off is prohibitive.
Basically, the questions that we are always seeking to answer are: can we
demonstrate *who* wrote this copywritten material, and is there a trail that
demonstrates that we have the permissions in place to distribute it.
Individuals covered under a committer agreement and employer consent are
obviously in good shape. But since the employer consent forms may be limited
to a specific project, crossing project boundaries require additional
documentation.
I hope this is helpful.
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eugene Kuleshov
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:51 AM
> To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [eclipse-pmc] contributed keyword
>
>
> How about partial committers? If committer only have partial commit
> rights on some project modules. Does his patches to other modules gets
> "contributed" keyword?
>
> regards,
> Eugene
>
>
> Jerome Lanneluc wrote:
> > Now that we know what a non-committer is, can we define what a
> contribution
> > is ?
> >
> > Does it include:
> >
> > 1. a change to a SDK project ?
> > Obviously yes :-)
> >
> > 2. a change to a doc project ?
> > In the last arch call, we said yes as well
> >
> > 3. a change to a test project ?
> > I would say yes, but what do you think ?
> >
> > 4. a change to a web project ?
> > I'm not sure about this one, What do you think ?
> >
> > 5. a change to a non-SDK project (e.g. the releng projects are not
> included
> > in the SDK) ?
> > I would say yes, but what do you think ?
> >
> > Or should we say that any change committed to the CVS repository
> related
> > the Eclipse Project is a contribution ?
> >
> > Jerome
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Megert
> > <daniel_megert@ch
> > .ibm.com>
> To
> > Sent by: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > eclipse-pmc-bounc
> cc
> > es@xxxxxxxxxxx eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> > eclipse-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Subject
> > 06/07/2007 10:47 Re: [eclipse-pmc] contributed
> > AM keyword
> >
> >
> > Please respond to
> > eclipse-pmc@eclip
> > se.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good, this means that inactive commiters don't get the 'contributed'
> > keyword as they are still single person commiters on that project.
> >
> > Dani
> >
> >
> >
> > Philippe P Mulet
> > <philippe_mulet@f
> > r.ibm.com>
> To
> > Sent by: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > eclipse-pmc-bounc
> cc
> > es@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Subject
> > Re: [eclipse-pmc] contributed
> > 07.06.2007 10:45 keyword
> >
> >
> > Please respond to
> > eclipse-pmc@eclip
> > se.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Who they work for is irrelevant. The important question is:
> > "Were they committers to the Eclipse SDK project when they
> contributed the
> > patch ?"
> > If answer is no, then use the "contributed" keyword.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Megert
> > <daniel_megert@ch
> > .ibm.com>
> To
> > Sent by: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > eclipse-pmc-bounc
> cc
> > es@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Subject
> > [eclipse-pmc] contributed
> keyword
> > 07/06/2007 09:27
> >
> >
> > Please respond to
> > eclipse-pmc@eclip
> > se.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just wanted to get clarification about committers that no longer
> actively
> > work on the Eclipse Project. I heard different opinions about that
> issue
> > during the call e.g. non-active committers should also get the
> > 'contributed' keyword. However, such committers that no longer work
> for us,
> > signed the single person committer agreement and they are still
> registered
> > as committers and as far as I know they also have the corresponding
> > permission on the server and bugzilla.
> >
> > Can you please clarify. Thanks
> >
> >
> > Dani
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
