Please disable CLA checking for trivial GitHub patches
Heya!
Recently I sent https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1012 - a typo fix to the docs. I got prompted to sign the CLA, but as I described in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1012#issuecomment-292038637, I really think that was unnecessary since it was only a couple characters.
The bot should probably be adjusted so it doesn't prompt for casual drive-by contributions.
I'm not subscribed so I won't see replies, but feel free to CC me if you need to (can't imagine why, though).
Cheers!
AJ
As shown in the response to your PR, core devs are able to override the bot by simply ignoring the check (that's why it's not required to pass for PR acceptance).
But the bot will never be adjusted to make its own call on what is or is not covered. It's too risky legally to get this wrong, e.g. there are patents guarding against how you iterate through things in telecom switches, so you could theoretically use a patent by changing a single line in a code example by how you iterate through something. I know that's an extreme example, but that's the sort of world we have to guard ourselves against. We also have lots of companies that ship Python in their product who would be totally screwed if we got this wrong as they would then potentially be liable for patent licensing costs.
So the bot will always be there and will always be all or nothing. Having said that, core devs will always be able to ignore it in cases where it's obvious there's no chance a patent is being violated or protected IP is being used (e.g. spelling mistakes). If this causes the occasional contributor to not fix a spelling mistake, that's unfortunate but I can live with that as being overly cautious about this legal stuff lets me sleep at night instead of worrying about being the guy who wrote a CLA bot that was just a tad too loose that one time and sent the PSF into bankruptcy over court costs. (You might think I'm exaggerating but I was really worried about not messing up the design and coding of the CLA bot because getting it wrong really does mean the PSF could be open to lawsuits.)
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 at 11:00 Alex Jordan alex@strugee.net wrote:
Heya!
Recently I sent https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1012 - a typo fix to the docs. I got prompted to sign the CLA, but as I described in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1012#issuecomment-292038637, I really think that was unnecessary since it was only a couple characters.
The bot should probably be adjusted so it doesn't prompt for casual drive-by contributions.
I'm not subscribed so I won't see replies, but feel free to CC me if you need to (can't imagine why, though).
Cheers!
AJ _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:15:52PM +0000, Brett Cannon wrote:
But the bot will never be adjusted to make its own call on what is or is not covered. It's too risky legally to get this wrong, e.g. there are patents guarding against how you iterate through things in telecom switches, so you could theoretically use a patent by changing a single line in a code example by how you iterate through something. I know that's an extreme example, but that's the sort of world we have to guard ourselves against. We also have lots of companies that ship Python in their product who would be totally screwed if we got this wrong as they would then potentially be liable for patent licensing costs.
Right, I was imagining a scenario in which the bot could be "kicked" to go fetch CLA information if it misjudged the triviality of a patch. Perhaps too much trouble than it's worth, though, given how critical this is to get right (which I certainly didn't have a good sense of before your message).
Thanks for the (highly informative) reply!
AJ
participants (2)
-
Alex Jordan -
Brett Cannon