On 14 November 2012 20:01, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > +1 in general to your ideas, it would be VERY nice to have an easy way, > and > > the more we all do to make it easy the more developers will work for both > > projects. I do however have one question. > > > > Regarding the mark #AOOCONTRIBUTION. It an AOO committer take the code > and > > integrate it, would that not be a clear violation of the ICLA paragraph > 7. > > As I read it, taking code requires a lot of extra red tape, compared to > if > > someone actively sends the code and asks a committer to integrate it ? > > > > I might be wrong, but from past experience with apache, taking source > that > > has not clearly been sent with the purpose of integration, can lead to > > problems. Remember it is not easy to proof who actually set the flag, > > whereas a mail sent is a clear indication. > > > > I agree that this would only work if we know that the patch author set > the flag. But this can be done via normal means. If you recall, I > didn't ask for your fingerprints or a DNA sample before integrating > your patches ;-) Unless shown otherwise I hope we can assume that no > one is committing fraud, like editing someone else's commit to add a > tag to it. > No you did not, but as I wrote...I sent the patches on a public mail to you, so there are no doubt about my intentions. Just for the sake of discussion (I am not implying anybody would do the following), assume I issue a patch for AOO (or LO) and do not set the flag, LO (or AOO) wants the patch so an administrator "assumes" I forgot the set the flag and helps me.
If I may extend your idea a little, when the flag is sent, AOO/LO sends a confirmation e-mail to the developer and asks if it correct to integrate (correctly formulated this mail can even give the developer more motivation) ? > > -Rob > > > Jan I > > > > > > > > On 14 November 2012 19:28, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I've heard some discussion and interest in this topic off-list. There > >> has been some practical experience, but nothing that we've written > >> down or promoted. I'd be interested in seeing if we can come up with > >> some solid best practices. > >> > >> The problem: Many (most?) open source contributors are not opposed to > >> AOO or LO. They are just interested in helping out. If they produce > >> a patch, or documentation, fix a bug or add a translation, they want > >> to maximize the public good that comes from that work. License > >> differences are confusing and frustrating and bring them no joy. They > >> want a set of clear instructions for how they can do the most good > >> with the least process overhead. > >> > >> Naturally, I'm looking at this from the AOO side. But most of these > >> issues are symmetrical. So for sake of argument, suppose I identify > >> myself primarily as a LibreOffice developer/translator/technical > >> author, and I want to make my work available more broadly. What > >> should I do? As I see it, the issues are threefold: communications, > >> technical integration and license. > >> > >> On the communications side, how do I let AOO know that I've done work > >> that I want to contribute to them? Sending a note to dev@ or posting > >> a patch in AOO's BZ would work, of course. But both require extra > >> work for the contributor. Are there any lighter weight ways of doing > >> this? For example, could we suggest a tag that could be used in git > >> or Bugzilla, for the contributor to indicate their intent that the > >> contribution be made available to AOO as well? Something like > >> #AOOCONTRIBUTION ? That would make it easy for us to search for such > >> items. > >> > >> Technical integration -- Due to divergence between the projects, not > >> every LO patch can be applied to AOO automatically. Some will, but > >> many will require adaptation. Certainly the contributor could > >> integrate and build their patch for both products. That would be > >> idea. But it is asking a lot. Would we accept less? Or maybe we > >> sugest areas where technical integration would be easier and require > >> no extra work? Otherwise, integration would require extra work on our > >> end. But this is not fatal. In fact it could lead to a set of "easy > >> tasks" for new developers. > >> > >> License -- the differences here are well-known, but are easily solved. > >> A contributor merely needs to state that they are making their patch > >> available to AOO under ALv2. There are various ways to record this > >> fact publicly. One is to make the statement in the source system (git > >> or BZ). But that is extra work. Another way might be submit an iCLA > >> to Apache. Another way might be to publicly record an intention on > >> our dev@ list, along the lines of, "All of my (future/past) > >> LibreOffice contributions should be considered also contributions > >> under the Apache License 2.0 to the Apache OpenOffice project". > >> > >> Another other ideas? > >> > >> -Rob > >> >
