Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] IP / Provenience problem ? When m

["Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gunnar,

I wasn't concerned about this particular case (which I agree is fine the way it is).

I'm more concerned about a case where contributor A makes a contribution, then it sits there for long, and finally contributor B does the necessary amendments to have it committed. I want both A and B recorded in that case, and not only B.

Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect - Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6


-----Original Message-----
From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gunnar Wagenknecht
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:29 PM
To: eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] IP / Provenience problem ? When multiple contributors collaborate on Gerrit

Hi Martin,

Am 13.06.2013 11:25, schrieb Oberhuber, Martin:
> It looks like íf multiple contributors collaborate on a change in 
> Gerrit, creating multiple patch sets, the final commit into Eclipse 
> git is done with a single commit thus only the last contributor gets 
> the credit . AFAIK Egit is a project where Gerrit changes tend to be 
> open for a long time, with multiple contributors collaborating potentially.

JGit/EGit requires the use of "Also-by: " in the commit message if multiple authors contributed to a change.

https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/8559/

However, I'm not sure if the tools developed/used by EMO take that into account.

> What do others think - particularly the IP / Git / Gerrit experts ?

Here are my two cents about the example you gave.

> Patch set 1 is a commit from Sergey Prigogin, which was cherry-picked for a backport.

If patch set 1 is a commit that was cherry-picked for a backport than the commit (including its committer and author information) should be already recorded properly in the Git history, shouldn't it?

 > Patch sets 2 and 3 are later modifications by Caroline Rieder (re-adding a file).
 > Essentially, Caroline authored zero code, she just performed the backport.

Caroline did not write any new code. But she authored the changed. Thus I think it's fair to record her contribution as well. This happened when the change was submitted by Sergey (using Caroline as author and himself as committer).

To me it looks correct. The fact that she did not write any new line of code might make a CQ obsolete. But it's still a form of contribution to a source tree. I'd like to have a CLA on file for this as well.

-Gunnar

--
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.