Please stop spamming commit logs!

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Hi,

I noticed that somebody started to add commercials to commit logs:

Sponsored by ....

Funded by ...

etc. etc.

We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.

Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.

IMHO there othe (better)r ways to advertise our QGIS commitment.

[Andrea Peri]

Hi Alessandro.

+1 .

Almost because I guess the Public Administration should be stop di
wast resources in gfoss.
:)

So the private could use their money as like better.
Instead the public should simply acquire licenses of commecial.
This could resolve any problem.

Dont ?

A.

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.
IMHO there othe (better)r ways to advertise our QGIS commitment.
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Andrea Peri
Hi Alessandro.
+1 .
Almost because I guess the Public Administration should be stop di
wast resources in gfoss.
:)
So the private could use their money as like better.
Instead the public should simply acquire licenses of commecial.
This could resolve any problem.
Dont ?

Well, I wasn't thinking at institutions and external sponsors.

I'm thinking to regular core committers.

Look into pull requests and you will know what I mean.

Imagine if I'd add "Funded by ItOpen bla bla bla" to all my (not yet
many) commits, if Jef added "Funded by Norbit" and Marco and others
added "Funded by Sourcepole" ...

TO EVERY COMMIT

It that what I would like to avoid.

--
w3: www.itopen.it

[Jürgen E. Fischer]

Hi Alessandro,

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.
IMHO there othe (better)r ways to advertise our QGIS commitment.

Like?

This has been discussed in the PSC
(http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014), but I'm not
actually sure what the outcome was.

I don't like that there is a necessity to do this - and I'd like to avoid it
too. But I also think there needs to be a way to value contributions and
make it visible who invests into the project.


Jürgen

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Alessandro,

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.
IMHO there othe (better)r ways to advertise our QGIS commitment.

Like?

We could mention it in release notes and changelogs. Or create a
dedicated page on the website (for funding over a certain amount).

[Andrea Peri]

The question is that whn we use an european fund to fund a develope
for gfoss (like qgis).

The enhancement is an advantace for all.
This is a certain.

But the European require to certificate the reality of the Fund
putting a disclaimer on the product realized.
Otherwise no fund at all.

I guess a citation in a page that is mied with many other developers
is not what ask the europe ,
because is not possible to localize exactly what was don with the european fund.

Ths is surely a problem and I guess is really hard to use successfully
European fund for enhancement on QGIS.

Instead the EU fund are really good for start new never existent
before gfoss products.
A godd example of this is gvSIG.

That software born with european fund.
So no doubt of it , all the work was from EU fund no proble to demostrate it.

A.

Post by Alessandro Pasotti

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Alessandro,

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.
IMHO there othe (better)r ways to advertise our QGIS commitment.

Like?

We could mention it in release notes and changelogs. Or create a
dedicated page on the website (for funding over a certain amount).
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Alessandro,
we surely can find a better way but I don't see any solution at the moment
when an institution wants to have an official track of what has been
developed with their funding.

What about release notes? Changelog ?

[Nyall Dawson]

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.

Is this really an issue? It seems rather trivial. I personally am
strongly in favour of these attributions in the commit log. Reasons
are:

- It gives credit to sponsors. That's important! Look at how many cool
features were added in 2.6 thanks to sponsorship...
- It gives credit to developers who donate their free/company time.
That's also important. QGIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these
developers donating their time
- The commit log is basically for developers or power
users/contributors only. It's a fairly harmless place to advertise
these sponsorship messages. For a while there was a few "sponsored by"
messages in code comments - that's a much worse/more intrusive place
for these messages.
- It lets us blow off steam when release pressures ramp up :P see
68c49fe09, 34f00d106 and 2427546d8

So, +1 for allowing these messages.

Nyall

[Nathan Woodrow]

I'm with Nyall. I see no direct reason this is a bad idea. If I do
something in my free time I don't care about getting recognition for it
because my direct work on the project is enough and if someone wants to see
what I do they can check my commit history or blog, however if I commit
something, say a feature that took be a while to make, on work time under
my employers name for them I think it's worth noting that they sponsored
that work. Their contribution can be traced to that single commit and
pulled from the log.

The place it gets tricky is if you are running your own business committing
all the time for work reasons.

On the same note I do think it's worth having a page for each release with
a list of users who were active and sponsors that did the work. This would
mean everyone gets highlighted for their work. It doesn't need to be name
+ feature type of list, just a list of names is enough..

- Nathan

Post by Nyall Dawson

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.

Is this really an issue? It seems rather trivial. I personally am
strongly in favour of these attributions in the commit log. Reasons
- It gives credit to sponsors. That's important! Look at how many cool
features were added in 2.6 thanks to sponsorship...
- It gives credit to developers who donate their free/company time.
That's also important. QGIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these
developers donating their time
- The commit log is basically for developers or power
users/contributors only. It's a fairly harmless place to advertise
these sponsorship messages. For a while there was a few "sponsored by"
messages in code comments - that's a much worse/more intrusive place
for these messages.
- It lets us blow off steam when release pressures ramp up :P see
68c49fe09, 34f00d106 and 2427546d8
So, +1 for allowing these messages.
Nyall
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Matthias Kuhn]

I agree with Nathan and Nyall. The commit history isn't a very
"official" thing, so there is some room for attribution and other
additional information.

Personally I prefer a meaningful commit message with some "spam" in it
over a commit message that contains (almost) no useful information like
"Fix #1234", "Fix #4567 [Meaningless title of an issue report]"
"Followup 65443" (That one is not so bad, but could be improved with
some prose). I often find myself looking at the commit history to find
information about why something was done.
IF something needs to be fixed in the commit log, then we should rather
focus on this than on a bit of pride, fun and attribution.

I also think that a list of funders/sponsors for a particular version
would be nice. This could be directly below the changelog or linked
there (I am rather thinking of a list than each individual change).

Regards,
Matthias

Post by Nathan Woodrow
I'm with Nyall. I see no direct reason this is a bad idea. If I do
something in my free time I don't care about getting recognition for
it because my direct work on the project is enough and if someone
wants to see what I do they can check my commit history or blog,
however if I commit something, say a feature that took be a while to
make, on work time under my employers name for them I think it's worth
noting that they sponsored that work. Their contribution can be
traced to that single commit and pulled from the log.
The place it gets tricky is if you are running your own business
committing all the time for work reasons.
On the same note I do think it's worth having a page for each release
with a list of users who were active and sponsors that did the work.
This would mean everyone gets highlighted for their work. It doesn't
need to be name + feature type of list, just a list of names is enough..
- Nathan

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful)

sentences

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
to every commit.

Is this really an issue? It seems rather trivial. I personally am
strongly in favour of these attributions in the commit log. Reasons
- It gives credit to sponsors. That's important! Look at how many cool
features were added in 2.6 thanks to sponsorship...
- It gives credit to developers who donate their free/company time.
That's also important. QGIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these
developers donating their time
- The commit log is basically for developers or power
users/contributors only. It's a fairly harmless place to advertise
these sponsorship messages. For a while there was a few "sponsored by"
messages in code comments - that's a much worse/more intrusive place
for these messages.
- It lets us blow off steam when release pressures ramp up :P see
68c49fe09, 34f00d106 and 2427546d8
So, +1 for allowing these messages.
Nyall
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Sandro Santilli]

Post by Matthias Kuhn
I agree with Nathan and Nyall. The commit history isn't a very
"official" thing, so there is some room for attribution and other
additional information.
Personally I prefer a meaningful commit message with some "spam" in
it over a commit message that contains (almost) no useful
information like "Fix #1234", "Fix #4567 [Meaningless title of an
issue report]" "Followup 65443" (That one is not so bad, but could
be improved with some prose). I often find myself looking at the
commit history to find information about why something was done.
IF something needs to be fixed in the commit log, then we should
rather focus on this than on a bit of pride, fun and attribution.

+1

On a related note, keeping commit lines within 70 columns and
separating short description line from long description body
with two newlines also helps a lot :)

--strk;

[Matthias Kuhn]

To make an example, this is a good commit message.

https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa

It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly

And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom stating
"Funded by John Wayne"

- Matthias

Post by Sandro Santilli

Post by Matthias Kuhn
I agree with Nathan and Nyall. The commit history isn't a very
"official" thing, so there is some room for attribution and other
additional information.
Personally I prefer a meaningful commit message with some "spam" in
it over a commit message that contains (almost) no useful
information like "Fix #1234", "Fix #4567 [Meaningless title of an
issue report]" "Followup 65443" (That one is not so bad, but could
be improved with some prose). I often find myself looking at the
commit history to find information about why something was done.
IF something needs to be fixed in the commit log, then we should
rather focus on this than on a bit of pride, fun and attribution.

+1
On a related note, keeping commit lines within 70 columns and
separating short description line from long description body
with two newlines also helps a lot :)
--strk;

[Jürgen E. Fischer]

Hi Matthias,

Post by Matthias Kuhn
To make an example, this is a good commit message.
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa
It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly
And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom stating
"Funded by John Wayne"

Almost. It should have "Fixes #8166" in it to automatically link to the issue
and close it - Bugfix #8166 doesn't create that link.


Jürgen

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Matthias,

Post by Matthias Kuhn
To make an example, this is a good commit message.
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa
It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly
And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom stating
"Funded by John Wayne"

Almost. It should have "Fixes #8166" in it to automatically link to the issue
and close it - Bugfix #8166 doesn't create that link.

Good hints. If it's not already in CODING, we could add these
guidelines in that file.

Also, since most of you don't seem to be annoyed by the "funded by"
sentences, I think we can agree on Victor's proposal: if the new
feature/bug fix etc. was funded by an organization, a company or an
individual, a single line (80 chars max) sentence can be added as the
last line of the commit, after a blank line.

That line should be added only in the last "merge" (final) commit and
not on all and every individual commit.

[Larry Shaffer]

Hi Alessandro,

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Matthias,

Post by Matthias Kuhn
To make an example, this is a good commit message.

https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer

Post by Matthias Kuhn
It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly
And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom stating
"Funded by John Wayne"

Almost. It should have "Fixes #8166" in it to automatically link to the

issue

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
and close it - Bugfix #8166 doesn't create that link.

Good hints. If it's not already in CODING, we could add these
guidelines in that file.
Also, since most of you don't seem to be annoyed by the "funded by"
sentences, I think we can agree on Victor's proposal: if the new
feature/bug fix etc. was funded by an organization, a company or an
individual, a single line (80 chars max) sentence can be added as the
last line of the commit, after a blank line.
That line should be added only in the last "merge" (final) commit and
not on all and every individual commit.

I disagree. "Funded by" attribution lines should go wherever the author
feels is appropriate, regardless of whether the commit is a merge type,
pulling in a whole branch, or the commits are simply rebased on top of
master.

It is a matter of public record:

* QGIS is a public project
* The funding is for a public project.
* The funding is a matter of public record (unless otherwise deemed by
sponsor).
* The commit log is a public record (and the longest standing one for the
project).

I fail to see how any of that can be misconstrued as "spam," if the line in
a commit is merely an attribution, i.e. not part of the first line of the
commit.

Even if *every* single commit message in the QGIS repo had a "Funded by"
attribution line, I could not see how that is anything but a matter of
fact. Actually, I think that would be an awesome record of the project's
prowess of finding sponsorship.

Regards,

Larry Shaffer
Dakota Cartography
Black Hills, South Dakota

Post by Matthias Kuhn
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Jonathan Moules]

Hi Larry,
At the risk of being a dissenting voice, is this really the message QGIS wants to spread? That sponsorship is king? As an Open Source GIS project, I would hope that its prowess lay in producing exceptional GI software rather than finding sponsorship. The later is a means to an end.

Also, what qualifies as “funded by”? There was a monetary transaction? In which case what about the people who donate code they created in their own time and have received no fiscal incentive at all – should not their contributions be similarly highlighted?

Cheers,
Jonathan


From: qgis-developer-***@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:qgis-developer-***@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Larry Shaffer
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 12:58 AM
To: Alessandro Pasotti
Cc: QGIS Developer Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] Please stop spamming commit logs!

Hi Alessandro,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Matthias,

Post by Matthias Kuhn
To make an example, this is a good commit message.
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa
It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly
And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom stating
"Funded by John Wayne"

Almost. It should have "Fixes #8166" in it to automatically link to the issue
and close it - Bugfix #8166 doesn't create that link.

Good hints. If it's not already in CODING, we could add these
guidelines in that file.

Also, since most of you don't seem to be annoyed by the "funded by"
sentences, I think we can agree on Victor's proposal: if the new
feature/bug fix etc. was funded by an organization, a company or an
individual, a single line (80 chars max) sentence can be added as the
last line of the commit, after a blank line.

That line should be added only in the last "merge" (final) commit and
not on all and every individual commit.

I disagree. "Funded by" attribution lines should go wherever the author feels is appropriate, regardless of whether the commit is a merge type, pulling in a whole branch, or the commits are simply rebased on top of master.

It is a matter of public record:
* QGIS is a public project
* The funding is for a public project.
* The funding is a matter of public record (unless otherwise deemed by sponsor).
* The commit log is a public record (and the longest standing one for the project).
I fail to see how any of that can be misconstrued as "spam," if the line in a commit is merely an attribution, i.e. not part of the first line of the commit.
Even if *every* single commit message in the QGIS repo had a "Funded by" attribution line, I could not see how that is anything but a matter of fact. Actually, I think that would be an awesome record of the project's prowess of finding sponsorship.
Regards,

Larry Shaffer
Dakota Cartography
Black Hills, South Dakota
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it<http://www.itopen.it>
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
Qgis-***@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Qgis-***@lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer



This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl<http://www.mailcontrol.com/>, a service from BlackSpider Technology

Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/I0txt8yKWP!GX2PQPOmvUihCLhWP7Wj9hp54mmEOLsPcfq!3p+2gK8O0TJTgqoXxCOZlUrWwm5Ieq4Nrivo6iw==> to report this email as spam.



________________________________

HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries uses faxes and emails for confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately and destroy all copies of it.

HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099

________________________________

[Andrea Peri]

I guess no fiscale advantage there are for any funding GFOSS.
So seeing to fiscale advantage the fund to GFOSS are fund lost.

I guess however that if a developer named "Count zero" give some code
developed by its own.
Why dont write "code founded by count zero with its own time" ?
The anonimy of the code is not a value. More better to know who found Every
piece of code.

Post by Jonathan Moules
Hi Larry,
At the risk of being a dissenting voice, is this really the message QGIS
wants to spread? That sponsorship is king? As an Open Source GIS project, I
would hope that its prowess lay in producing exceptional GI software rather
than finding sponsorship. The later is a means to an end.
Also, what qualifies as “funded by”? There was a monetary transaction? In
which case what about the people who donate code they created in their own
time and have received no fiscal incentive at all – should not their
contributions be similarly highlighted?
Cheers,
Jonathan
*Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 12:58 AM
*To:* Alessandro Pasotti
*Cc:* QGIS Developer Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: [Qgis-developer] Please stop spamming commit logs!
Hi Alessandro,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Matthias,

Post by Matthias Kuhn
To make an example, this is a good commit message.

https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer

Post by Matthias Kuhn
It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly
And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom stating
"Funded by John Wayne"

Almost. It should have "Fixes #8166" in it to automatically link to the

issue

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
and close it - Bugfix #8166 doesn't create that link.

Good hints. If it's not already in CODING, we could add these
guidelines in that file.
Also, since most of you don't seem to be annoyed by the "funded by"
sentences, I think we can agree on Victor's proposal: if the new
feature/bug fix etc. was funded by an organization, a company or an
individual, a single line (80 chars max) sentence can be added as the
last line of the commit, after a blank line.
That line should be added only in the last "merge" (final) commit and
not on all and every individual commit.
I disagree. "Funded by" attribution lines should go wherever the author
feels is appropriate, regardless of whether the commit is a merge type,
pulling in a whole branch, or the commits are simply rebased on top of
master.
* QGIS is a public project
* The funding is for a public project.
* The funding is a matter of public record (unless otherwise deemed by sponsor).
* The commit log is a public record (and the longest standing one for the project).
I fail to see how any of that can be misconstrued as "spam," if the line
in a commit is merely an attribution, i.e. not part of the first line of
the commit.
Even if *every* single commit message in the QGIS repo had a "Funded by"
attribution line, I could not see how that is anything but a matter of
fact. Actually, I think that would be an awesome record of the project's
prowess of finding sponsorship.
Regards,
Larry Shaffer
Dakota Cartography
Black Hills, South Dakota
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl
<http://www.mailcontrol.com/>, a service from BlackSpider Technology
Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/I0txt8yKWP!GX2PQPOmvUihCLhWP7Wj9hp54mmEOLsPcfq!3p+2gK8O0TJTgqoXxCOZlUrWwm5Ieq4Nrivo6iw==>
to report this email as spam.
------------------------------
*HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries* uses faxes and emails for
confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of
themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than
addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for
unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately
and destroy all copies of it.
HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Andrea Peri
I guess no fiscale advantage there are for any funding GFOSS.
So seeing to fiscale advantage the fund to GFOSS are fund lost.
I guess however that if a developer named "Count zero" give some code
developed by its own.
Why dont write "code founded by count zero with its own time" ?
The anonimy of the code is not a value. More better to know who found Every
piece of code.

Every single log line has the committer's GitHub name so it isn't anonymous.

My original concern was about advertising who pays the development
**in the commit logs**.

I just believe that commit logs are not the right place. I would
rather prefer to see those informations in the release notes, on a
dedicated web page, on printed materials, on T shirts, on coffee mugs,
carved in stones, wherever you want but commit logs (and source code,
except email addresses and copyright in the header, of course).

Let me repeat it again: I'm absolutely not against providing full
credits to funders, I'm against doing so in the commit logs, they are
by devs for devs.

Of course, I will be happy with any conclusion the community will
agree upon, if any.

[Jonathan Moules]

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Every single log line has the committer's GitHub name so it isn't anonymous.

I know, but that also includes the paid-for devs; my point was that if QGIS wishes to highlight those paying for work with money, then highlighting those paying for work with time seems fair too.

Other than that, I'm +1 your entire message and don't think anything of the sort should be in the logs!

Cheers,
Jonathan

________________________________

HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries uses faxes and emails for confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately and destroy all copies of it.

HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099

________________________________

[Nathan Woodrow]

Honestly. I don't really think it's that big of a deal. If you pay for
something in your time and would like credit for it there are lots of ways
to get credit: blogs, twitters, commit logs, github stats. If I do
something and I want people to think "oh look a new feature Nathan added"
(or someone else s cool work) I will blog about it, else I just leave it.

We already have a list of contributors on the About box. We can make this
more fancy but that can also turn the whole thing into a game of numbers
and lines committed, and Jurgen will always win ;)

The reality is this:

1) Some companies want to see it for record, or contract.
2) It doesn't pollute the log
3) It's at the bottom so you don't see it unless you do a full log (git log
--oneline if you didn't know you can do that for short log)
4) Does it really matter?
5) The first line is all that really matters
6) I like seeing that X feature at Y point was added/funded by Z company
7) We can pull this information for the website to generate a page

1) and 4) are the most important ones.

I look at the log every day, as with all devs, in short and log form, and
have never once cared about that small bit of text at the end.

- Nathan

Post by Alessandro Pasotti

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Every single log line has the committer's GitHub name so it isn't

anonymous.
I know, but that also includes the paid-for devs; my point was that if
QGIS wishes to highlight those paying for work with money, then
highlighting those paying for work with time seems fair too.
Other than that, I'm +1 your entire message and don't think anything of
the sort should be in the logs!
Cheers,
Jonathan
________________________________
HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries uses faxes and emails for confidential
and legally privileged business communications. They do not of themselves
create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than addressees
requires our specific consent. We are not liable for unauthorised
disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately
and destroy all copies of it.
HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Vincent Picavet]

Hi,

Le lundi 13 octobre 2014 14:12:08, Nathan Woodrow a écrit :
[..]

Post by Nathan Woodrow
1) Some companies want to see it for record, or contract.
2) It doesn't pollute the log
3) It's at the bottom so you don't see it unless you do a full log (git log
--oneline if you didn't know you can do that for short log)
4) Does it really matter?
5) The first line is all that really matters
6) I like seeing that X feature at Y point was added/funded by Z company
7) We can pull this information for the website to generate a page
1) and 4) are the most important ones.

+7 to that :-)

Vincent

Post by Nathan Woodrow
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Jonathan Moules

Post by Alessandro Pasotti

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Every single log line has the committer's GitHub name so it isn't

anonymous.
I know, but that also includes the paid-for devs; my point was that if
QGIS wishes to highlight those paying for work with money, then
highlighting those paying for work with time seems fair too.
Other than that, I'm +1 your entire message and don't think anything of
the sort should be in the logs!
Cheers,
Jonathan
________________________________
HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries uses faxes and emails for
confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not
of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than
addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for
unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately
and destroy all copies of it.
HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Nathan Woodrow]

Post by Jonathan Moules
At the risk of being a dissenting voice, is this really the message QGIS
wants to spread? That sponsorship is king? As an Open Source GIS project, I
would hope that its prowess lay in producing exceptional GI software rather
than finding sponsorship. The later is a means to an end.

Well I guess money does make the world go around. A lot of the cool
features in QGIS were the result of sponsored work, without that
sponsorship somethings might have never happen. Developers and community
many exceptional software which is driven by sponsors and the community. I
don't really see any harm in giving a hat tip to the sponsers because a lot
of them invest a lot of cash into QGIS. This is of course not to say that
we should just change to a "give us all your money!" model but that is not
what is going to happen, or is happening now.

Post by Jonathan Moules
Also, what qualifies as “funded by”? There was a monetary transaction? In
which case what about the people who donate code they created in their own
time and have received no fiscal incentive at all – should not their
contributions be similarly highlighted?

I would like to see a more public list of those who spent time on each
version, including translators, and doco writers, and sponsors. All of this
can be pulled from the git logs and using the funded by tags is a good way
to find money based features/bugs.

- Nathan.

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi Jonathan,

I don't think that this is the message that QGIS wants to spread. If it
would be, we would do popups that ask you to sponsor for every new
feature you created ;-)

But as you state, sponsorship is a means to an end. As such it is a
prerequisite for moving this software on and therefore it is good if
users are aware of the fact, that this software was created by people
and that they can only spend their time if they have a possibility to
get the money they need for a living.

If you ask me: a "funded by" is in a commit author's responsibility. He
knows what he wrote that commit for. Be it for money, for fun, for his
boss, somebody he loves or a university degree. If he thinks it is worth
putting a note there for any reason - i.e. definitely not limited to
monetary transactions - he should be able to do so. It does no harm, but
may be a reward for his time or be part of a contract.

The username next to a git commit is not the same thing. It can only
tell who does the commit, but does not tell for what reason/who he does it.

The only restriction I would put to this is that it must be placed at
the end of the commit on a new line (for the sake of good readability).

Regards,
Matthias

Post by Jonathan Moules
Hi Larry,
At the risk of being a dissenting voice, is this really the message
QGIS wants to spread? That sponsorship is king? As an Open Source GIS
project, I would hope that its prowess lay in producing exceptional GI
software rather than finding sponsorship. The later is a means to an end.
Also, what qualifies as “funded by”? There was a monetary transaction?
In which case what about the people who donate code they created in
their own time and have received no fiscal incentive at all – should
not their contributions be similarly highlighted?
Cheers,
Jonathan
Shaffer
*Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 12:58 AM
*To:* Alessandro Pasotti
*Cc:* QGIS Developer Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: [Qgis-developer] Please stop spamming commit logs!
Hi Alessandro,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Alessandro Pasotti

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Matthias,

Post by Matthias Kuhn
To make an example, this is a good commit message.

https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/commit/a132bc9a9e318c2321c8fba13dc9503b4d11e2aa

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer

Post by Matthias Kuhn
It states
* which problem it solves
* and what it does exactly
And I could not care less about an additional line at the bottom

stating

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer

Post by Matthias Kuhn
"Funded by John Wayne"

Almost. It should have "Fixes #8166" in it to automatically link to

the issue

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
and close it - Bugfix #8166 doesn't create that link.

Good hints. If it's not already in CODING, we could add these
guidelines in that file.
Also, since most of you don't seem to be annoyed by the "funded by"
sentences, I think we can agree on Victor's proposal: if the new
feature/bug fix etc. was funded by an organization, a company or an
individual, a single line (80 chars max) sentence can be added as the
last line of the commit, after a blank line.
That line should be added only in the last "merge" (final) commit and
not on all and every individual commit.
I disagree. "Funded by" attribution lines should go wherever the
author feels is appropriate, regardless of whether the commit is a
merge type, pulling in a whole branch, or the commits are simply
rebased on top of master.
* QGIS is a public project
* The funding is for a public project.
* The funding is a matter of public record (unless otherwise deemed by sponsor).
* The commit log is a public record (and the longest standing one for the project).
I fail to see how any of that can be misconstrued as "spam," if the
line in a commit is merely an attribution, i.e. not part of the first
line of the commit.
Even if *every* single commit message in the QGIS repo had a "Funded
by" attribution line, I could not see how that is anything but a
matter of fact. Actually, I think that would be an awesome record of
the project's prowess of finding sponsorship.
Regards,
Larry Shaffer
Dakota Cartography
Black Hills, South Dakota
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl
<http://www.mailcontrol.com/>, a service from BlackSpider Technology
Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/I0txt8yKWP%21GX2PQPOmvUihCLhWP7Wj9hp54mmEOLsPcfq%213p+2gK8O0TJTgqoXxCOZlUrWwm5Ieq4Nrivo6iw==>
to report this email as spam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries* uses faxes and emails for
confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do
not of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties
other than addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable
for unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us
immediately and destroy all copies of it.
HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Nyall Dawson]

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Hi Jonathan,
I don't think that this is the message that QGIS wants to spread. If it
would be, we would do popups that ask you to sponsor for every new
feature you created ;-)
But as you state, sponsorship is a means to an end. As such it is a
prerequisite for moving this software on and therefore it is good if
users are aware of the fact, that this software was created by people
and that they can only spend their time if they have a possibility to
get the money they need for a living.
If you ask me: a "funded by" is in a commit author's responsibility. He
knows what he wrote that commit for. Be it for money, for fun, for his
boss, somebody he loves or a university degree. If he thinks it is worth
putting a note there for any reason - i.e. definitely not limited to
monetary transactions - he should be able to do so. It does no harm, but
may be a reward for his time or be part of a contract.
The username next to a git commit is not the same thing. It can only
tell who does the commit, but does not tell for what reason/who he does it.
The only restriction I would put to this is that it must be placed at
the end of the commit on a new line (for the sake of good readability).
Regards,
Matthias

+1 . Can I request that the psc please make a final ruling about this issue
so that we can close this discussion and all move on?

Nyall

[Richard Duivenvoorde]

Post by Nyall Dawson
+1 . Can I request that the psc please make a final ruling about this
issue so that we can close this discussion and all move on?

Speaking here with my PSC hat on <|:-)

Nice example of a 'community discussion/rise-up' I think, but as noted
by Anita earlier, this came already up in a PSC meeting and we more or
came to this same conclusion.

As a PSC we can be blamed for not 'communicating' this enough AND off
course community members can always have an opposite reasoning
from it anyway.

But now let's stick by our earlier conclusion and I will add the
following line:

"a dev can write a one line (<=80 chars) 'thank you/funded by/whatever'
as a LAST line in his/her commit message to give credits to someone for
the work"

somewhere here:

http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/sponsorship/index.html

This is/was in our view the least obtrusive way (for users, apparently
not for all devs) to give credits to sponsors if needed.

Hope this settles down this discussion, now let's do some new
features... funded or not :-)

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

Post by Nyall Dawson

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Hi Jonathan,
I don't think that this is the message that QGIS wants to spread. If it
would be, we would do popups that ask you to sponsor for every new
feature you created ;-)
But as you state, sponsorship is a means to an end. As such it is a
prerequisite for moving this software on and therefore it is good if
users are aware of the fact, that this software was created by people
and that they can only spend their time if they have a possibility to
get the money they need for a living.
If you ask me: a "funded by" is in a commit author's responsibility. He
knows what he wrote that commit for. Be it for money, for fun, for his
boss, somebody he loves or a university degree. If he thinks it is worth
putting a note there for any reason - i.e. definitely not limited to
monetary transactions - he should be able to do so. It does no harm, but
may be a reward for his time or be part of a contract.
The username next to a git commit is not the same thing. It can only
tell who does the commit, but does not tell for what reason/who he does

it.

Post by Matthias Kuhn
The only restriction I would put to this is that it must be placed at
the end of the commit on a new line (for the sake of good readability).
Regards,
Matthias

+1 . Can I request that the psc please make a final ruling about this
issue so that we can close this discussion and all move on?

Sure - please raise the question (in a clear yes/no answerable form) to the
PSC mailing list for these type of queries.

Regards

Tim

Post by Nyall Dawson
Nyall
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sutton
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
* Desktop GIS programming services
* Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

Post by Tim Sutton
Hi

Post by Nyall Dawson

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Regards,
Matthias

+1 . Can I request that the psc please make a final ruling about this
issue so that we can close this discussion and all move on?

Sure - please raise the question (in a clear yes/no answerable form) to
the PSC mailing list for these type of queries.

That should be a general procedure for raising issues to the PSC anyway. I
will also rais in the next PSC meeting getting in place some system to keep
a better record of the votes we have taken.

Regards

Tim

Post by Tim Sutton
Regards
Tim

Post by Nyall Dawson
Nyall
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sutton
* Desktop GIS programming services
* Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sutton
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
* Desktop GIS programming services
* Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial

[Anita Graser]

As Jürgen mentioned, we discussed this:
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten
lost in my todo pile:


16:20 <@anitagraser> 1. would be "giving credit to funders"
16:21 <@anitagraser> ideas were: a) in code/comment, b) in commit
messages, c) in release log, .... any more?
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:21 < pcav> I think commits are most appropriate
16:22 < pcav> but we should agree on a standard formula
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:22 < pcav> like "funded by ..." and a max N of words
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:22 < pcav> and decide links yes/no (I'd vote no)
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:23 < duiv> if we only do it in the release log, it does not
accumulate in the code
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:24 < duiv> and we do not have trouble with 'first version funded by
A', second by B and finally fixed by C
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:25 <@anitagraser> vote for b)?
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:25 < pcav> +1
16:25 <@anitagraser> +1
16:26 < jef> we vote for what? allow commiters to add a comment about
how funded their work and forbid to put it into the source?
16:27 < duiv> if it is ok for the funders: +1 but if I would for
example have raised a couple of thousand euro's to implement
something... not sure if I would be ok with a commit msg
16:27 < jef> s/add a comment/add a comment into the commit message/
16:27 < pcav> they can always refer to the link
16:27 < pcav> and put it in their own announcements
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:32 < jef> duiv: a comment in the commit is acceptable to me -
although it's unnessary clutter, too.
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:33 < duiv> ok, so the verdict? We prefer to do credits in commit
msgs, not in code anymore?
16:33 < pcav> me and anitagraser voted
16:33 < duiv> +1
16:34 < pcav> jef: ?
16:34 < jef> 0
16:34 < jef> guidelines... ;)
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:35 <@anitagraser> somewhere here
http://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/index.html?
----------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
16:38 <@anitagraser> duiv: i can write two or three lines to start with
16:39 < duiv> plz do, and add it in the governance docs in one go

Best wishes,
Anita

I agree with Nathan and Nyall. The commit history isn't a very "official"
thing, so there is some room for attribution and other additional
information.
Personally I prefer a meaningful commit message with some "spam" in it over
a commit message that contains (almost) no useful information like "Fix
#1234", "Fix #4567 [Meaningless title of an issue report]" "Followup 65443"
(That one is not so bad, but could be improved with some prose). I often
find myself looking at the commit history to find information about why
something was done.
IF something needs to be fixed in the commit log, then we should rather
focus on this than on a bit of pride, fun and attribution.
I also think that a list of funders/sponsors for a particular version would
be nice. This could be directly below the changelog or linked there (I am
rather thinking of a list than each individual change).
Regards,
Matthias
I'm with Nyall. I see no direct reason this is a bad idea. If I do
something in my free time I don't care about getting recognition for it
because my direct work on the project is enough and if someone wants to see
what I do they can check my commit history or blog, however if I commit
something, say a feature that took be a while to make, on work time under my
employers name for them I think it's worth noting that they sponsored that
work. Their contribution can be traced to that single commit and pulled
from the log.
The place it gets tricky is if you are running your own business committing
all the time for work reasons.
On the same note I do think it's worth having a page for each release with a
list of users who were active and sponsors that did the work. This would
mean everyone gets highlighted for their work. It doesn't need to be name +
feature type of list, just a list of names is enough..
- Nathan

Post by Nyall Dawson

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.

Is this really an issue? It seems rather trivial. I personally am
strongly in favour of these attributions in the commit log. Reasons
- It gives credit to sponsors. That's important! Look at how many cool
features were added in 2.6 thanks to sponsorship...
- It gives credit to developers who donate their free/company time.
That's also important. QGIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these
developers donating their time
- The commit log is basically for developers or power
users/contributors only. It's a fairly harmless place to advertise
these sponsorship messages. For a while there was a few "sponsored by"
messages in code comments - that's a much worse/more intrusive place
for these messages.
- It lets us blow off steam when release pressures ramp up :P see
68c49fe09, 34f00d106 and 2427546d8
So, +1 for allowing these messages.
Nyall
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Jürgen E. Fischer]

Hi Anita,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point in
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not. Guidelines would just dis- or
encourage the attribution, but not set a clear rule - and then this discussion
could go on and on (well, it probably will either way).


Jürgen

[Nathan Woodrow]

My guideline in all this would be:

What harm is it doing to need to change what is currently happening? To me
the answer is none.

Provided you don't put it all on one line in the commit log and have it at
the bottom then put what ever you like in there as long as I can see what
was done and by who

- Nathan

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Anita,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point in
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not. Guidelines would just dis- or
encourage the attribution, but not set a clear rule - and then this discussion
could go on and on (well, it probably will either way).
JÃŒrgen
--
JÃŒrgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. [phone]
Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13 Fax. [phone]
Software Engineer D-26506 Norden
http://www.norbit.de
QGIS release manager (PSC) Germany IRC: jef on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)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=Tzgc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Anita,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point in
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not. Guidelines would just dis- or
encourage the attribution, but not set a clear rule - and then this discussion
could go on and on (well, it probably will either way).

Hi Jürgen,

you've got the point.

Without clear rules we risk abuse.

My original complaint was not about occasional big new features
fundings (see regione Toscana or city of Uster) but day-by-day small
bug fixes or changes made by regular committers.

If every developer start adding "Funded by ...." lines to each and
every commit he makes, than we have a problem.

[Matthias Kuhn]

Do we have a problem? What kind of?

Is a funded (with money) feature more worth than a feature or bugfix
sponsored by a developer's private time?

Post by Alessandro Pasotti

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Anita,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point in
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not. Guidelines would just dis- or
encourage the attribution, but not set a clear rule - and then this discussion
could go on and on (well, it probably will either way).

Hi Jürgen,
you've got the point.
Without clear rules we risk abuse.
My original complaint was not about occasional big new features
fundings (see regione Toscana or city of Uster) but day-by-day small
bug fixes or changes made by regular committers.
If every developer start adding "Funded by ...." lines to each and
every commit he makes, than we have a problem.

[Alessandro Pasotti]

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Do we have a problem? What kind of?

There was an IF condition in front of my sentence:

IF every developer starts .....

THEN we have a problem

And the problem would be flooding of commit logs with "Funded|Sponsored by ..."

I can live with it, I just feel that commit logs are not the right
place to store those information.

If commit logs were not visible on github (and Google couldn't find
them) we were probably not even talking about them.

[Victor Olaya]

I personally do not see any problem in having a "Sponsored by" bottom line
even in every commit message. Maybe not the most correct thing to do, but
it doesn't bother me, just like it doesn't bother me to see the author of
the commit. As long as the first line of the message (which is the one
shown in log summaries) describes the change introduced by the commit, i
think it does no harm at all

If we do not want the log commit to be flooded with such lines, maybe we
can encourage people to put them only in merge commits. If someone is
sponsoring you to develop some new functionality, you are likely going to
be working on it on a separate branch. Write your comments normally and
when it gets merged into master, put your "Sponsored by XXX" tag in the
merge commit.

My 2 cents

Anyway, not such a big problem, IMHO

Post by Alessandro Pasotti

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Do we have a problem? What kind of?

IF every developer starts .....
THEN we have a problem
And the problem would be flooding of commit logs with "Funded|Sponsored by ..."
I can live with it, I just feel that commit logs are not the right
place to store those information.
If commit logs were not visible on github (and Google couldn't find
them) we were probably not even talking about them.
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Nyall Dawson]

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Do we have a problem? What kind of?
Is a funded (with money) feature more worth than a feature or bugfix

sponsored by a developer's private time?

Agreed. If I spend 2 hours of my free time fixing a bug, I think i'd be
entitled to putting a "sponsored by" message in the log to use as
advertising for my business.

Ultimately it's far more important to have the bug fixed than have a
slightly shorter commit log.

Nyall

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Anita,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point in
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not. Guidelines would just dis- or
encourage the attribution, but not set a clear rule - and then this discussion
could go on and on (well, it probably will either way).

Hi JÃŒrgen,
you've got the point.
Without clear rules we risk abuse.
My original complaint was not about occasional big new features
fundings (see regione Toscana or city of Uster) but day-by-day small
bug fixes or changes made by regular committers.
If every developer start adding "Funded by ...." lines to each and
every commit he makes, than we have a problem.

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Nathan Woodrow]

Also we should avoid playing the What If game. It's not normally a good
idea because it's a open ended question. My position is normally fix a
problem when it becomes a problem. (This only applies to non life
threatening situations of course).

- Nathan

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Do we have a problem? What kind of?
Is a funded (with money) feature more worth than a feature or bugfix

sponsored by a developer's private time?
Agreed. If I spend 2 hours of my free time fixing a bug, I think i'd be
entitled to putting a "sponsored by" message in the log to use as
advertising for my business.
Ultimately it's far more important to have the bug fixed than have a
slightly shorter commit log.
Nyall

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
Hi Anita,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point

in

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not. Guidelines would just

dis- or

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
encourage the attribution, but not set a clear rule - and then this

discussion

Post by Matthias Kuhn

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
could go on and on (well, it probably will either way).

Hi JÃŒrgen,
you've got the point.
Without clear rules we risk abuse.
My original complaint was not about occasional big new features
fundings (see regione Toscana or city of Uster) but day-by-day small
bug fixes or changes made by regular committers.
If every developer start adding "Funded by ...." lines to each and
every commit he makes, than we have a problem.

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Nyall Dawson]

Post by Nyall Dawson

Post by Matthias Kuhn
Do we have a problem? What kind of?
Is a funded (with money) feature more worth than a feature or bugfix
sponsored by a developer's private time?

Agreed. If I spend 2 hours of my free time fixing a bug, I think i'd be
entitled to putting a "sponsored by" message in the log to use as
advertising for my business.
Ultimately it's far more important to have the bug fixed than have a
slightly shorter commit log.

Actually - the more I think about it, the more I'm in FAVOUR of these
messages. I personally think every "sponsored by
Sourcepole/Boundless/Norbit/..." adds weight to the project. It shows
that it's a serious project with serious backers, rather than a
part-time hobby project.

Nyall

[Jürgen E. Fischer]

Hi Alessandro,

My original complaint was not about occasional big new features fundings (see
regione Toscana or city of Uster) but day-by-day small bug fixes or changes
made by regular committers.
If every developer start adding "Funded by ...." lines to each and every
commit he makes, than we have a problem.

Well, I fail to see either problem or actual need. If each and every commit
was properly attributed it would probably get less attractive anyway. And the
"value" of the contributions are hard to value anyway and all this is only
considering code contributions...


Jürgen

[Anita Graser]

Hi Jürgen,

Post by Jürgen E. Fischer
http://hub.qgis.org/wiki/quantum-gis/PSC_Meeting_7_Feb_2014
My interpretation is that the PSC agreed on allowing giving credit to
funders in commit messages. Obviously I promised to write something
along these lines in the governance docs, but that might have gotten

You can't as we didn't decide anything, did we? I don't see a point in
guidelines - either it's allowed or it's not.

My interpretation of the discussion is that Paolo, Richard, and me
+1ed allowing crediting funders, while you gave it a 0. No other PSC
members were present.
Based on that, it would be allowed and it should probably be stated
somewhere that "yes, it is allowed to credit funders in the commit
messages".
Or do you mean that not enough PSC members voted?

Best wishes,
Anita

[Lene Fischer]

I agree to Nyall -

We need sponsors. And sponsors donŽt want to be in footnotes fontsize 6.5

Right now IŽve started to get sponsors to the next developer/usermeeting in Denmark. And IŽm sure sponsors will not be satisfied to be put into an appendix.

I think these small textnotes in the mail are harmless

Regards

Lene Fischer
Associate Professor

Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management
University of Copenhagen

MOB [phone]
lfi-QI0R8ygbCQNaa/***@public.gmane.org<mailto:lfi-QI0R8ygbCQNaa/***@public.gmane.org>


[SCIENCE_bomaerke_UK]




-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: qgis-developer-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:qgis-developer-***@lists.osgeo.org] På vegne af Nyall Dawson
Sendt: 10. oktober 2014 09:51
Til: Alessandro Pasotti
Cc: QGIS Developer Mailing List
Emne: Re: [Qgis-developer] Please stop spamming commit logs!

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.

Is this really an issue? It seems rather trivial. I personally am strongly in favour of these attributions in the commit log. Reasons

are:



- It gives credit to sponsors. That's important! Look at how many cool features were added in 2.6 thanks to sponsorship...

- It gives credit to developers who donate their free/company time.

That's also important. QGIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these developers donating their time

- The commit log is basically for developers or power users/contributors only. It's a fairly harmless place to advertise these sponsorship messages. For a while there was a few "sponsored by"

messages in code comments - that's a much worse/more intrusive place for these messages.

- It lets us blow off steam when release pressures ramp up :P see 68c49fe09, 34f00d106 and 2427546d8



So, +1 for allowing these messages.



Nyall

_______________________________________________

Qgis-developer mailing list

Qgis-developer-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:Qgis-developer-***@public.gmane.org>

http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Alessandro Pasotti]

I agree to Nyall –
We need sponsors. And sponsors donÂŽt want to be in footnotes fontsize 6.5

Agreed, see the footer the home page

http://www.qgis.org/it/site/

Right now IÂŽve started to get sponsors to the next developer/usermeeting
in Denmark. And IÂŽm sure sponsors will not be satisfied to be put into an
appendix.
I think these small textnotes in the mail are harmless

Sorry, I don't follow you: I was talking about commit logs.

[Mathieu Pellerin]

Considering that one of QGIS' main source of funding for development is
through financial sponsorship of _independent_ developers, I'd be very
careful not to take decisions that would hurt that ecosystem without asking
those independent developers the reasoning behind leaving a trace in the
commit log of who/what financially paid for feature XYZ.

For e.g., this could actually be a requirement of sponsors when it comes to
financial audits (i.e., what better audit proof that budgeted money went to
pay for specific improvement(s) of an open source project than a trace in
the said open source project's commit logs).

Beyond that, I find that as long as the "sponsored by" / "funded by"
one-liner is a the very end of the commit log, it doesn't hurt the ease of
readability of the commit logs via github or git log.

The home page footer sponsors are listing the QGIS project sponsors, not
sponsors who paid for independent developers to improve code and add new
features. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

M

Post by Alessandro Pasotti

I agree to Nyall –
We need sponsors. And sponsors donÂŽt want to be in footnotes fontsize 6.5

Agreed, see the footer the home page
http://www.qgis.org/it/site/

Right now IÂŽve started to get sponsors to the next
developer/usermeeting in Denmark. And IÂŽm sure sponsors will not be
satisfied to be put into an appendix.
I think these small textnotes in the mail are harmless

Sorry, I don't follow you: I was talking about commit logs.
--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

[Jonathan Moules]

Chiming in from the perspective of someone who was working for an occasional feature “sponsor” until recently (mostly GeoServer, but also one or two QGIS), we didn’t do it with the intent of getting our name in anything (be it commit log, appendix, or even <h1> on the project front-page). We did it because we needed a feature or wanted to help the project.
If we were doing it to raise awareness of our philanthropy, the commit log is quite probably the absolute last place we’d have wanted it to be.


From: qgis-developer-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:qgis-developer-***@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Lene Fischer
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Nyall Dawson; Alessandro Pasotti
Cc: QGIS Developer Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] Please stop spamming commit logs!


I agree to Nyall –

We need sponsors. And sponsors donŽt want to be in footnotes fontsize 6.5

Right now IŽve started to get sponsors to the next developer/usermeeting in Denmark. And IŽm sure sponsors will not be satisfied to be put into an appendix.

I think these small textnotes in the mail are harmless

Regards

Lene Fischer
Associate Professor

Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management
University of Copenhagen

MOB [phone]
lfi-QI0R8ygbCQNaa/***@public.gmane.org<mailto:lfi-QI0R8ygbCQNaa/***@public.gmane.org>


[SCIENCE_bomaerke_UK]




-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: qgis-developer-bounces-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:qgis-developer-***@lists.osgeo.org> [mailto:qgis-developer-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] På vegne af Nyall Dawson
Sendt: 10. oktober 2014 09:51
Til: Alessandro Pasotti
Cc: QGIS Developer Mailing List
Emne: Re: [Qgis-developer] Please stop spamming commit logs!

Post by Alessandro Pasotti
Hi,
Sponsored by ....
Funded by ...
etc. etc.
We should take this seriously, mostly ever developer works for a
company or run its own business.
Imagine if everybody starts adding those (not really useful) sentences
to every commit.

Is this really an issue? It seems rather trivial. I personally am strongly in favour of these attributions in the commit log. Reasons

are:



- It gives credit to sponsors. That's important! Look at how many cool features were added in 2.6 thanks to sponsorship...

- It gives credit to developers who donate their free/company time.

That's also important. QGIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these developers donating their time

- The commit log is basically for developers or power users/contributors only. It's a fairly harmless place to advertise these sponsorship messages. For a while there was a few "sponsored by"

messages in code comments - that's a much worse/more intrusive place for these messages.

- It lets us blow off steam when release pressures ramp up :P see 68c49fe09, 34f00d106 and 2427546d8



So, +1 for allowing these messages.



Nyall

_______________________________________________

Qgis-developer mailing list

Qgis-developer-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:Qgis-developer-***@public.gmane.org>

http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer


This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl<http://www.mailcontrol.com/>, a service from BlackSpider Technology

Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/dlpPl07p8H3GX2PQPOmvUnWSlf6oUOY8Cn6S0JRwpIyA3vav42EuV7HMmaV05UyNCOZlUrWwm5L46EHnGWFGZQ==> to report this email as spam.



________________________________

HR Wallingford and its subsidiaries uses faxes and emails for confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them.
If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately and destroy all copies of it.

HR Wallingford Limited
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, United Kingdom
Registered in England No. 02562099

________________________________