If your committer has pulled together content from sources that
existed before the project was created, then it sounds like a CQ is
in order.
I believe that I am duty bound to roll my eyes at the notion of
1,400 lines of coding style guidelines.
How high are you making the bar for contribution?
Wayne
On 24/03/16 12:47 PM, Mark Stoodley
wrote:
Thanks, Gunnar and
Wayne for the quick
responses!
No poke at Markdown...it was a
poke
at the notion to have >1000 lines of coding style guidelines
(it's actually
about 1400 lines worth :) ).
Personally, I'd have to imagine
coding
style guidelines as "anticipated content". Although,
technically,
many of the coding style guidelines were written before the
project was
initiated, one of our project committers did some clean up and
formatted
as markdown. We do have a GitHub issue opened to discuss the
contribution.
I still feel like I've talked my
way
halfway between withdrawing and keeping the CQ :) .
|
|
Mark
Stoodley |
8200
Warden Avenue |
|
Senior
Software Developer |
Markham,
L6G 1C7 |
IBM
Runtime Technologies |
Canada |
Phone: |
+1-905-413-5831 |
|
|
e-mail: |
mstoodle@xxxxxxxxxx |
|
|
We cannot solve our
problems with the same
thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein |
|
|
From:
Wayne Beaton
<wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
2016/03/24 12:36 PM
Subject:
Re: [incubation]
clarification request for when CQs are needed
Sent by:
incubation-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Mark.
Content authored by a project committer falls under Figure #1 of
the IP
Due Diligence Process [1] which covers:
Written 100% by
Submitting Committer
or Committer on same
Project under the
supervision of the PMC
The real question, I think, is how do we define "under the
supervision
of the PMC". If the content was authored after the individual
became
a committer, provides functionality that is within the scope of
the project,
has been developed in an open and transparent manner, and the
PMC could
otherwise reasonably expect this sort of content to arrive, then
you're
good. If you already have a bug open to track and discuss the
contribution,
you have a slam-dunk.
A counter example might be some content that you've pulled out
of an old
archive that existed before the project was created, or if the
committer
disappeared for a month and arrived back with a huge
contribution that
nobody expected.
Assuming that this content was authored after the developer
gained committer
status, my assessment is that you don't need a CQ.
Does this help?
What's with the poke at Markdown? Did Markdown stop being cool?
Did I miss
a memo?
Wayne
[1] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
On 24/03/16 12:21 PM, Mark Stoodley wrote:
If a project committer makes a
significant
(say > 1000 lines of code) contribution and the contribution
is "new"
content (by which I mean a completely new file or piece of
content; not
modifications to existing content in the project), does that
necessarily
count as an "initial contribution" under the IP process?
The specific example we've got is the contribution of our coding
standard,
which is more than 1000 lines (yeah, I know) of markdown. Up
until
this point, we did not have a documented coding standard, so
technically
it's "new content" but I have to admit, I felt kind of silly
opening a CQ for it (which I did anyway under the guise of
"better
safe than sorry" : see https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11134if
you're really interested).
It was contributed by a project committer so doesn't directly
fall under
the "> 1000 lines" rule for non committers.
Do we need a CQ for such content?
Later on, one of our committers will be contributing several
hundred thousand
lines of Just In Time compiler code. That code, I will obviously
treat
as "initial contribution", but looking for some guidance on
where
the threshold is for this kind of thing and how pedantic I
should be about
it.
|
|
Mark
Stoodley |
8200
Warden Avenue |
|
Senior
Software Developer |
Markham,
L6G 1C7 |
IBM
Runtime Technologies |
Canada |
Phone: |
+1-905-413-5831 |
|
|
e-mail: |
mstoodle@xxxxxxxxxx |
|
|
We cannot solve our
problems with the same
thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein |
|
|
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|