[Geoserver-devel] CONTRIBUTIONS.md

GeoServer GeoServer Developer
1

Updated the dev guide for assignment_agreement.pdf scan/email.

Also created:

This is an extract of our dev guide patch and commit pages with the following modifications:

  1. scan and email for assignment_agreement.pdf
  2. vauge language with respect to needing assignment_agreement for pull requests. I think we need a vote for this still?
  3. Updating headers covers both new files (2014) and old files (2003-2014)
  4. Tips added to patches a) include a test case b) reference Jira if known

Q: Did we decide to require assignment_agreement for pull requests? I am more more keen now that we have a scan/email workflow. I would be happy to recommend the same guidelines as GeoTools (i.e. modify more that one file? please ensure we have an agreement on file).

–
Jody Garnett

2

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com>wrote:

Updated the dev guide for assignment_agreement.pdf scan/email.

Also created:

* https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-6389
* https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/532

This is an extract of our dev guide patch and commit pages with the
following modifications:

1. scan and email for assignment_agreement.pdf
2. vauge language with respect to needing assignment_agreement for pull
requests. I think we need a vote for this still?

Yes we do. Hum... btw, will our contribution agreement cause issues like
the GeoTools one?
Or is the GPL license going to scare away the companies that might have
issues with it anyways?

3. Updating headers covers both new files (2014) and old files (2003-2014)
4. Tips added to patches a) include a test case b) reference Jira if known

Q: Did we decide to require assignment_agreement for pull requests? I am
more more keen now that we have a scan/email workflow. I would be happy to
recommend the same guidelines as GeoTools (i.e. modify more that one file?
please ensure we have an agreement on file).

Nope, we did not. I believe we just had an informal agreement about:
1) required to push modules to extension/core
2) for "large" changes, without any notion of what large means

The GeoTools guidelines seem fine, but I'm worried about how do we get a
list of
those that have signed, in order to check delivery and then accept the pull
request?

Cheers
Andrea

--

Meet us at GEO Business 2014! in London! Visit http://goo.gl/fES3aK
for more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

3

Comments inline:

···

Actually I think GPL makes it easier. Since GeoServer assigment_agreement has already been past CSIRO legal think it has gotten a decent review.

Yeah that agrees with my understanding. We can leave it alone for now.

I assume we email OpenPlans and ask - although perhaps we could ask them to share a google doc with PSC?

This is an extract of our dev guide patch and commit pages with the following modifications:

  1. scan and email for assignment_agreement.pdf
  2. vauge language with respect to needing assignment_agreement for pull requests. I think we need a vote for this still?

Yes we do. Hum… btw, will our contribution agreement cause issues like the GeoTools one?
Or is the GPL license going to scare away the companies that might have issues with it anyways?

Q: Did we decide to require assignment_agreement for pull requests? I am more more keen now that we have a scan/email workflow. I would be happy to recommend the same guidelines as GeoTools (i.e. modify more that one file? please ensure we have an agreement on file).

Nope, we did not. I believe we just had an informal agreement about:

  1. required to push modules to extension/core
  2. for “large” changes, without any notion of what large means

The GeoTools guidelines seem fine, but I’m worried about how do we get a list of
those that have signed, in order to check delivery and then accept the pull request?

4

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com>wrote:

The GeoTools guidelines seem fine, but I'm worried about how do we get a
list of
those that have signed, in order to check delivery and then accept the
pull request?

I assume we email OpenPlans and ask - although perhaps we could ask them
to share a google doc with PSC?

Yes, that would be best imho, maybe a DropBox folder?
OSGeo has a svn location I can just "svn up" to see if a new agreement has
been processed

Cheers
Andrea

--

Meet us at GEO Business 2014! in London! Visit http://goo.gl/fES3aK
for more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------