Hi Jim,
>> I guess it depends on what kind of a company you work for. :)
>>
>> I do see how it can be a problem in some cases, of course, which is
>> unfortunate. But then the issue under discussion here is kind of moot:
>> you can't submit a patch and ask someone else to commit it either. :)
>>
>
> Doesn't that invalidate the work done in the tune-up days?
I was making a specific point about bugs fixed during customer
projects. If your customer won't let you commit patches yourself, they
won't let you submit a patch to a tracker either. The issue is
copyright, not the use of Subversion vs. Trac. :)
> If only core
> contributors can commit, and cannot commit work from anyone else, then there
> are a whole raft of problems that simply cannot be fixed, unless we get a
> lot of core developers with time on their hands who can clean-room
> reimplement the patch submitted by someone who doesn't have that same
> agreement.
I think you're missing the point. What is a "core" developer? It's
just someone who's signed a contributor agreement and can use "svn ci"
on a repository that starts with svn.plone.org/svn/plone. If everyone
who intends to go to more than one Tune-Up spent the first time
filling in a contributor agreement, checking out plonenext and
learning how to write a changelog entry and a test with their bug
fixes, then they'd be empowered to just fix things the next time
around.
Why should a smaller number of individuals become a bottleneck? It
doesn't make any sense. There is no "us" and "them". If you're
interested in working on Plone, then you should have a signed
contributor agreement, and you should be checking in code when you
have something worthwhile to check in.
> That seems a rather high bar.
I think you're assuming there's a bar between "core" and "not" which
just doesn't exist. I would trust you not to deliberately do something
stupid, and if you did it by accident, your change would just be
reverted or, hopefully, adjusted as necessary.
> Maybe there should be an exception for patches of five lines or less? Some
> kind of streamlined "I fixed this typo - don't put a pile of process in
> front of me" system?
What process? Yes, you need to sign the agreement. Otherwise we have
an intellectual property issue. But we're all adults and we know how
to fill in a one-page form. If you're a user of Plone and have the
capacity and ability to contribute, then you can navigate that one
little bit of process. Go grab a bug and fix it.
There's a slightly different issue around people who need a bit of
handholding because they don't know how to fix something. Tune-up days
also serve to mentor people. Think of it as free training. But that's
different.
> Speaking as someone who spends some time doing Plone coding, but also does
> enough other things that taking the implied commitment of signing a
> contributor agreement just to fix a few quick bugs in my spare time just
> doesn't feel... right.
Sorry, but that's rubbish. If you do your taxes, buy home insurance,
or sign up for a mobile phone contract, then you know how to put your
signature on a piece of paper and scan, fax or post it. Even if it
turned out you never actually got around to committing a line of code,
it's a tiny bit of personal admin that enables you to much more
effectively contribute to a community from which you probably benefit
quite a bit.
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Plone-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
