1. 2
  1.  

  2. 1

    I wish FreeBSD was putting some effort into getting their custom features integrated in stock Subversion.

    I suspect very few developers are interested in dealing with the CLA.

    1. 1

      CLA is not required for patches.

      1. 1

        I think this needs more clarification. Any contribution can be considered a “patch”. Does this apply to simple bug fixes? What about new features? How many lines of code until this “patch” is no longer a “patch” and requires the CLA?

        1. 3

          A CLA is only required to get an apache.org account (i.e. commit access).

          A CLA has never been required to contribute any patches to Subversion. The act of submitting the patch, and having it handled by a commiter, is good enough. An invite for commit access can always be rejected for any reason. We don’t care if you reject such an invite based on CLA.

          I don’t understand where you’re getting this idea from. Have you ever tried to contribute to SVN? Has some other ASF project required a CLA from you?

          Edit: If you don’t want to take my word for it, ask Roy T. Fielding:

          Yes, that opinion comes from me speaking as a board member and author of the Apache License, and has previously been cleared with Apache’s legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator. We don’t need a CLA on file to accept contributions from non-committers. We just need a clear intent by the author to contribute under our normal terms.

          http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/201112.mbox/%3CA603FFCE-623B-43E9-87F8-39BAA51C72D1@gbiv.com%3E