From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue May 15 00:25:21 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11900EAA5AB for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 00:25:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FA37DB8C for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 00:25:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (124-148-66-42.dyn.iinet.net.au [124.148.66.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w4F0PFp3080111 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 May 2018 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: Practice of "Sponsored by" in commit messages To: "John W. O'Brien" , FreeBSD Ports References: From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <9260b48c-cdeb-e144-b4af-8ea43f730303@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 08:25:09 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 00:25:21 -0000 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 cover > 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 contributor > received no sponsorship, the portrayal feels a little awkward. Does this > 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. > 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)"? Probably not for just a review, unless it was pretty in depth and took many hours. 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.  "Sponsored by:"  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.   In some cases it is deliberately 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). > 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 Sys > 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 where > 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. >