Patch submission

[Ross Thomas]

Is there a suggested/standard place to submit patches for the Dojo tree?
Or should I just post it here and let it be absorbed as needed?

Ross.

[Eugene Lazutkin]

Ross Thomas wrote:
> Is there a suggested/standard place to submit patches for the Dojo tree?
> Or should I just post it here and let it be absorbed as needed?
>
> Ross.

The best way to submit a patch is to create a trac ticket, and attach
the patch to it
(http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/WikiHome/DojoDotBook/Book53). But first
you should register as a contributor:
http://dojo.jot.com/HowToGetInvolved --- we want to make sure that we
have legally "clean" code.

Thanks,

Eugene

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Ross Thomas]

Eugene Lazutkin wrote:

The best way to submit a patch is to create a trac ticket, and attach
the patch to it
(http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/WikiHome/DojoDotBook/Book53). But first
you should register as a contributor:
http://dojo.jot.com/HowToGetInvolved --- we want to make sure that we
have legally "clean" code.

Interestingly, the CLA makes no statement about the intended use
or privacy of the personal information supplied by the submitter.

Given that, I think I'll pass for now.  It's a pity though.  The patch would've
helped several people on this list ... as it has helped me.

Ross.

[Karl Tiedt]

Ross,
    I'm forwarding this up to the other contributors, Tree is something thats always great to have updates to as it does have a limited set of contributors that are familiar with the Tree wigets.

-Karl

On 1/13/07, Ross Thomas <dojo@...> wrote:

Eugene Lazutkin wrote:
>
> The best way to submit a patch is to create a trac ticket, and attach
> the patch to it
> (http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/WikiHome/DojoDotBook/Book53 ). But first
> you should register as a contributor:
> http://dojo.jot.com/HowToGetInvolved --- we want to make sure that we
> have legally "clean" code.
>

Interestingly, the CLA makes no statement about the intended use
or privacy of the personal information supplied by the submitter.

Given that, I think I'll pass for now.  It's a pity though.  The patch
would've
helped several people on this list ... as it has helped me.

Ross.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Patch-submission-tf2969750.html#a8317902
Sent from the Dojo mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

--
-Karl Tiedt
_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Adam Peller-4]

Ross,

What sort of privacy statement would you like to see?

On 1/13/07, Karl Tiedt <ktiedt@...> wrote:

> Ross,
>     I'm forwarding this up to the other contributors, Tree is something
> thats always great to have updates to as it does have a limited set of
> contributors that are familiar with the Tree wigets.
>
> -Karl
>
> On 1/13/07, Ross Thomas <dojo@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Eugene Lazutkin wrote:
> > >
> > > The best way to submit a patch is to create a trac ticket, and attach
> > > the patch to it
> > >
> (http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/WikiHome/DojoDotBook/Book53
> ). But first
> > > you should register as a contributor:
> > > http://dojo.jot.com/HowToGetInvolved --- we want to
> make sure that we
> > > have legally "clean" code.
> > >
> >
> > Interestingly, the CLA makes no statement about the intended use
> > or privacy of the personal information supplied by the submitter.
> >
> > Given that, I think I'll pass for now.  It's a pity though.  The patch
> > would've
> > helped several people on this list ... as it has helped me.
> >
> > Ross.
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Patch-submission-tf2969750.html#a8317902
> > Sent from the Dojo mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
> > Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
> > Dojo-interest@...
> > http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Karl Tiedt
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors@...
> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Eugene Lazutkin]

Ross Thomas wrote:

>
> Eugene Lazutkin wrote:
>> The best way to submit a patch is to create a trac ticket, and attach
>> the patch to it
>> (http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/WikiHome/DojoDotBook/Book53). But first
>> you should register as a contributor:
>> http://dojo.jot.com/HowToGetInvolved --- we want to make sure that we
>> have legally "clean" code.
>>
>
> Interestingly, the CLA makes no statement about the intended use
> or privacy of the personal information supplied by the submitter.

Did you try to ask about it? The only published personal information on
contributors I know of is here:
http://dojo.jot.com/WikiHome/ContributorListing. It lists 169 individual
contributors and 23 companies. I don't recall any contributor ever
complaining about privacy issues. But I think you right --- we have to
spell out our privacy policy.

OTOH you asked how to submit a patch to Dojo in a public forum using
your name and supplying your e-mail address --- don't you think the Big
Brother already knows your "nefarious" intent?

> Given that, I think I'll pass for now.  It's a pity though.  The patch
> would've
> helped several people on this list ... as it has helped me.

We are an open source group with BSD/AFL license. We don't force anybody
to share. You are free to make your own decisions. Obviously you can use
Dojo without contributing back (see the license).

Thank you for using Dojo,

Eugene

PS: Hmm, it is a thought: forget about software development, let's sell
our contributor lists to spammers and get rich quick... Nah, we love
coding, and we hate spammers.

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Ross Thomas]

Eugene Lazutkin wrote:

Ross Thomas wrote:
>
> Interestingly, the CLA makes no statement about the intended use
> or privacy of the personal information supplied by the submitter.

Did you try to ask about it? The only published personal information on
contributors I know of is here:
http://dojo.jot.com/WikiHome/ContributorListing. It lists 169 individual
contributors and 23 companies. I don't recall any contributor ever
complaining about privacy issues. But I think you right --- we have to
spell out our privacy policy.

OTOH you asked how to submit a patch to Dojo in a public forum using
your name and supplying your e-mail address --- don't you think the Big
Brother already knows your "nefarious" intent?

Well, let's see:  Address, phone, fax.
Unless they are not required for the CLA, in which case that should be
indicated on the form.

I'm not worried about Big Brother (there's not much you can do about him).

I'm worried Internet Wackos.

> Given that, I think I'll pass for now.  It's a pity though.  The patch
> would've helped several people on this list ... as it has helped me.

We are an open source group with BSD/AFL license. We don't force anybody
to share. You are free to make your own decisions. Obviously you can use
Dojo without contributing back (see the license).

Oh!  I'll happily post the patch.  But the indication was that it would
not even be considered if it wasn't from an authorized contributor.
And a lot of the people on the list don't seem to want to use anything
other than the sanctioned distributions.

PS: Hmm, it is a thought: forget about software development, let's sell
our contributor lists to spammers and get rich quick...

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

Nah, we love coding, and we hate spammers.

Good.  Then it should probably be put (in some similar fashion) into the
CLA text.

Ross.

[Ross Thomas]

Karl Tiedt wrote:

    I'm forwarding this up to the other contributors, Tree is something
thats always great to have updates to as it does have a limited set of
contributors that are familiar with the Tree wigets.

Sorry Karl.  I wasn't fully clear.  I meant the Dojo source tree.  The patch
itself is for FilteringTable.

Ross.

[Ross Thomas]

Adam Peller-4 wrote:

What sort of privacy statement would you like to see?

Well, if the only required info is name & email, then I'm not really
worried.  But the CLA seems to indicate that one's address,
phone & fax are needed as well.  That's not information you
want bandied about the 'net willy-nilly.  And there are very few
people in the Dojo foundation that need it.  Legal & compliance
folks mostly.

So something that indicates required info and what will be done
with it.  Who will have access to it and under what conditions.

Eugene indicated that it was to keep the code "legally" clean.
This is just the 'quid pro quo' associated with the information
provided.

Don't get me wrong.  Dojo is a great effort & I really do want to
contribute.  But for this one reservation it would all be over and
done with already.

Ross.

[Karl Tiedt]

Ross,
   The CLA's goto Carrie (who manages the CLA list) and she files them away. The only contributors who currently have direct access to those that I know of are Alex, Dylan  (both of who used to receive them and file them) and of course Carrie (who files them currently). These arent made available on the net, but I will certainly push the core Foundation members to get this stated clearly and from an official standpoint. I'm of course no lawyer, I'm just providing you with the information I currently know.

-Karl

On 1/13/07, Ross Thomas <dojo@...> wrote:

Adam Peller-4 wrote:
>
> What sort of privacy statement would you like to see?
>

Well, if the only required info is name & email, then I'm not really
worried.  But the CLA seems to indicate that one's address,
phone & fax are needed as well.  That's not information you
want bandied about the 'net willy-nilly.  And there are very few
people in the Dojo foundation that need it.  Legal & compliance
folks mostly.

So something that indicates required info and what will be done
with it.  Who will have access to it and under what conditions.

Eugene indicated that it was to keep the code "legally" clean.
This is just the 'quid pro quo' associated with the information
provided.

Don't get me wrong.  Dojo is a great effort & I really do want to
contribute.  But for this one reservation it would all be over and
done with already.

Ross.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Patch-submission-tf2969750.html#a8318841
Sent from the Dojo mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

--
-Karl Tiedt
_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Eugene Lazutkin]

Ross Thomas wrote:
>
> Well, let's see:  Address, phone, fax.
> Unless they are not required for the CLA, in which case that should be
> indicated on the form.

One funny thing about that kind of documents is verifiability --- in the
case of potential challenges some smart lawyers may want to ask you
directly if you did sign the CLA your self and about your contributions.
CLA without a physical person is a piece of paper.

> Oh!  I'll happily post the patch.  But the indication was that it would
> not even be considered if it wasn't from an authorized contributor.

I am not the final authority on this sort of thing, but unfortunately
any piece of code accepted by Dojo should be covered by CLA.

> And a lot of the people on the list don't seem to want to use anything
> other than the sanctioned distributions.

IMHO this is a very smart choice, especially when your
product/company/reputation depends on Dojo or any other product.
Especially it is true for major companies.

>> PS: Hmm, it is a thought: forget about software development, let's sell
>> our contributor lists to spammers and get rich quick...
>
> Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

I hope you don't think that Dojo is a spammer's honey pot --- I was
joking. But it would be interesting to know what reputable open source
projects sold their contributors' private data. I really do want to know
some examples --- I want to be careful myself.

>> Nah, we love coding, and we hate spammers.
>
> Good.  Then it should probably be put (in some similar fashion) into the
> CLA text.

Now we are talking the positive constructive position. Personally I am
all for it. Of course it will take some time --- the Dojo Foundation
should contact a lawyer to amend the CLA.

Thanks,

Eugene

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Eugene Lazutkin]

Karl Tiedt wrote:
> Ross,
>   The CLA's goto Carrie (who manages the CLA list) and she files them away.
> The only contributors who currently have direct access to those that I know
> of are Alex, Dylan  (both of who used to receive them and file them) and of
> course Carrie (who files them currently). These arent made available on the
> net, but I will certainly push the core Foundation members to get this
> stated clearly and from an official standpoint. I'm of course no lawyer,

As far as I know they are kept physically on paper, not online. To my
best knowledge the only public information about contributors was in the
URL I gave before (which lists names). General public, contributors, and
commiters don't know each other e-mail addresses, phones, fax numbers,
or any other information, unless it was disclosed directly to them by
the person him/herself. Majority of e-mail addresses I use to exchange
e-mails about Dojo business were taken from public groups like this one.

I do know IM handles of some people, and they know mine, but all this
information was disclosed in private correspondence or in person.

To sum it up: in spite of lack of written privacy policy for
contributors Dojo does a good job on keeping our information private.

> I'm
> just providing you with the information I currently know.

Ditto.

Thanks,

Eugene

>
> -Karl
>
> On 1/13/07, Ross Thomas <dojo@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam Peller-4 wrote:
>> >
>> > What sort of privacy statement would you like to see?
>> >
>>
>> Well, if the only required info is name & email, then I'm not really
>> worried.  But the CLA seems to indicate that one's address,
>> phone & fax are needed as well.  That's not information you
>> want bandied about the 'net willy-nilly.  And there are very few
>> people in the Dojo foundation that need it.  Legal & compliance
>> folks mostly.
>>
>> So something that indicates required info and what will be done
>> with it.  Who will have access to it and under what conditions.
>>
>> Eugene indicated that it was to keep the code "legally" clean.
>> This is just the 'quid pro quo' associated with the information
>> provided.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong.  Dojo is a great effort & I really do want to
>> contribute.  But for this one reservation it would all be over and
>> done with already.
>>
>> Ross.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Patch-submission-tf2969750.html#a8318841
>> Sent from the Dojo mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
>> Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
>> Dojo-interest@...
>> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
> Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
> Dojo-interest@...
> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest

[Ross Thomas]

Hi Karl,

Karl Tiedt wrote:

The CLA's goto Carrie (who manages the CLA list) and she files them away.
The only contributors who currently have direct access to those that I know
of are Alex, Dylan  (both of who used to receive them and file them) and of
course Carrie (who files them currently). These arent made available on the
net, but I will certainly push the core Foundation members to get this
stated clearly and from an official standpoint. I'm of course no lawyer, I'm
just providing you with the information I currently know.

Thanks for the explanation.  The changes will be a good thing.  As Eugene
mentioned in another post, this can take time given the usual speed of the
legal system.  I guess I'll have to wait for the amended CLA before becoming
an official contributor.

In the meantime, I will post the patch to the list (it's going to seem *very*
anti-climactic after all this) and let those people who need the functionality
decide to use it or not use it as they see fit.

Thanks to you, Eugene & Adam for your input on this.  I hope that the
changes will not take too long as I have other ideas that I wish to implement
that, while I don't *need* them just yet, will become vital to my project and
may be of interest to other Dojo users.

Ross.

[Robert Coup]

Eugene Lazutkin wrote:
>> Good.  Then it should probably be put (in some similar fashion) into the
>> CLA text.
>>    
> Now we are talking the positive constructive position. Personally I am
> all for it. Of course it will take some time --- the Dojo Foundation
> should contact a lawyer to amend the CLA.
>  
Why not be a bit more general and get/write a privacy policy for Dojo
which covers
the CLA and any other things where personal information is used?

Rob :)

--
One Track Mind Ltd.
PO Box 1604, Shortland St, Auckland, New Zealand
Phone [phone] Mobile [phone]
Web http://www.onetrackmind.co.nz 


_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest