Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 18:54:29 -0400 From: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Practice of "Sponsored by" in commit messages Message-ID: <ced0e35a-aa69-821f-b03d-a2a9e08010b5@saltant.com> In-Reply-To: <9260b48c-cdeb-e144-b4af-8ea43f730303@freebsd.org> References: <ae2fe971-b20b-1fdf-48cd-58f595836c11@saltant.com> <9260b48c-cdeb-e144-b4af-8ea43f730303@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--fm7ZTi3jCSEAcaPD8qPEO9PHwXpo79EsQ
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="yKfu3Xblqz21O3ZWfffs3T02U3HIMNtzT";
protected-headers="v1"
From: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>,
FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <ced0e35a-aa69-821f-b03d-a2a9e08010b5@saltant.com>
Subject: Re: Practice of "Sponsored by" in commit messages
References: <ae2fe971-b20b-1fdf-48cd-58f595836c11@saltant.com>
<9260b48c-cdeb-e144-b4af-8ea43f730303@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <9260b48c-cdeb-e144-b4af-8ea43f730303@freebsd.org>
--yKfu3Xblqz21O3ZWfffs3T02U3HIMNtzT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2018/05/14 20:25, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 15/5/18 7:40 am, John W. O'Brien wrote:
>> Hello FreeBSD Ports,
>>
>> The Committer's Guide section on Commit Log Messages [0], doesn't cove=
r
>> the use of the "Sponsored by" key word. As a non-committer contributor=
,
>> it only recently occurred to me to wonder what work that credit is
>> intended to represent, and whether some light definition would be
>> helpful to reduce ambiguity.
>>
>> When a committer credits a sponsor of theirs, from which the contribut=
or
>> received no sponsorship, the portrayal feels a little awkward. Does th=
is
>> strike the list as a problem, and if so, how ought it be solved?
>>
>> To make this concrete, allow me to illustrate the situation.
>>
>> Alice, working on her own time, prepares and contributes a patch. Bob,=
>> who works for Acme Corp, reviews and commits the patch on company time=
=2E
>> The commit message includes "Sponsored by: Acme Corp". Alice eagerly
>> awaits her check from Acme Corp. Should the commit message have read
>> "Sponsored by: Acme Corp (Bob)"?
>=20
> Probably not for just a review, unless it was pretty in depth and took
> many hours.
It sounds like my example didn't make the point I intended. I was trying
to highlight the fact that the unqualified credit in the example makes
it seem like Alice's efforts were funded by the sponsor when they
weren't. If Alice's efforts were trivial while Bob's were substantial,
maybe that's no big deal. If the reverse is true, then I think there is
a problem, which is why I propose qualifying the credit.
Ambiguous: Sponsored by: Acme Corp
Qualified: Sponsored by: Acme Corp (Bob)
To be clear, a committer who "just" reviews and commits a contributed
patch should definitely be able to credit their employer at their
discretion.
> However we want to give some sort of acknowledgement
> to companies that do allow their work to be incorporated, and who allow=
> their employees to do some FreeBSD work as part of their duties.
> It also makes their name familiar to the readers of the commit emails
> and often results in others seeking work there etc.
> =C2=A0"Sponsored by:"=C2=A0 generally means "some (maybe small) part of=
this work
> was developed
> by someone being paid". It does not specify how much, and it is
> generally left to the committer
> to decide if it was meaningful.=C2=A0=C2=A0 In some cases it is deliber=
ately NOT
> entered despite
> the developer being paid. (e.g. when a company is in stealth mode, or
> when some political
> issue is relevant and people don't want to draw attention).
I agree that the practice should not aim to quantify the relative
contributions, and that the decision to credit a sponsor should be left
to each participant.
>> This could be extensible to multiple sponsorships. If, instead, Alice
>> prepares the patch having received a grant to do so from Best Sys Dev,=
>> the commit message could state "Sponsored by: Acme Corp (Bob), Best Sy=
s
>> Dev (Alice)".
>>
>> [0]
>> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/=
article.html#commit-log-message
>>
>>
>> PS: I realize that this issue transcends ports, but it's not clear whe=
re
>> I should send this instead, and this list seems like it would have a
>> reasonably high concentration of people with a stake in the discussion=
=2E
>>
>=20
--=20
John W. O'Brien
OpenPGP keys:
0x33C4D64B895DBF3B
--yKfu3Xblqz21O3ZWfffs3T02U3HIMNtzT--
--fm7ZTi3jCSEAcaPD8qPEO9PHwXpo79EsQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEKpEHkkRoSDiIJkQOWPtK56pP/m4FAlr+CCUACgkQWPtK56pP
/m7W1Qf/cg+u6omZX6MhT+ctQHUiTL0FAmPrjWE888+hsHvx0IEClyVw54gY0MHE
cSK9q4NKiR5CYTf8PbIb/PfzTxxi1woKyw7UeamEKocgu1HxGemliRUCDGisBVeX
kwhoYjmnmrG4QBZOrPKDQO8t5Gs/lcr1gAU5D0dLznHRmiyUOwKwW//zh4i7zmgX
mUBMoJ7Lic1siOi1Y7hpMYT9xoG7A5tEdP/V0L2cvks+Nt7eNVpDyohfWBhIv1oy
LDZ0xMoMvY6QauLTrHBdfDCU+WZdS4yWJF0+e5vt1uJ5vPi5on0soVd/Xy52uUtf
X+tb2dm2pvK4rfAzyw4pyi8lK8g8JA==
=fC0Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--fm7ZTi3jCSEAcaPD8qPEO9PHwXpo79EsQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ced0e35a-aa69-821f-b03d-a2a9e08010b5>