Update contributor docs #11944
Update contributor docs #11944
Conversation
richlander
commented
May 27, 2017
richlander
commented
- Simplify contributor docs
- Split out licensing
- Outline decision process for licensing binaries
- Remove project priorities document -- link to roadmap
|
|
||
| The .NET Core copyright is held by ".NET Foundation and Contributors". | ||
|
|
||
| The [.NET Foundation](http://www.dotnetfoundation.org/) is an independent organization that encourages open development and collaboration around the .NET ecosystem. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I may be pedantic, but "independent" of what? How is it different from "The .NET Foundation is an organization that..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got the text from here: https://dotnetfoundation.org/about
I assume it is intended to mean independent from Microsoft, which pays the majority of the bills for the foundation.
| things in the same commit, and not too small with the same small change applied N | ||
| times in N different commits. If there was some accidental reformatting or whitespace | ||
| changes during the course of your commits, please rebase them away before submitting | ||
| the PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this as important now that we can squash when we merge in github?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Funny. Should I remove from "If there was..."
|
Overall, LGTM |
|
|
||
| If the CI build fails for any reason, the PR issue will be updated with a link that can be used to determine the cause of the failure. | ||
|
|
||
| There is currently minimal test coverage for Linux and OS X builds that can be used by the dotnet CI. We are working to improve that so that more issues can be caught in CI, as is the case with Windows. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume you mean Coreclr has minimal test coverage for them. That may be true. CoreFX has reasonable coverage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is outdated. The CoreCLR CI coverage is roughly the same for both Windows and non-Windows.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed. I didn't change any of the workflow content, so this is all as-is. Thanks for reviewing it, however.
|
|
||
| Operating System: | ||
|
|
||
| - [Linux](https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/labels/os-linux) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bit unclear what Linux and macOS are doing here. Maybe Linux distros, but that label is really just used for Linux specific bugs. Maybe list potential distros? And is there any porting relevant to macOS?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could be that I could use better wording ... My point was "if you are interested in working on focusing on one of the ports, here they are." Someone might be specifically interested in Linux. My goal was to help to get into that space quickly. I realize that the port is "done". Initially, I just listed chips. That seemed lackluster.
| - If the contained binaries are built from multiple .NET Core repositories, the license should point to dotnet/core: https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/LICENSE. | ||
| - If the contents are not 100% open source, the distribution should be licensed with the .NET Library license: `https://www.microsoft.com/net/dotnet_library_license.htm`. | ||
| - It is OK for licensing to be asymmetric for a single distribution type. For example, it’s possible that the .NET Core SDK distribution might be fully open source for Linux but include a closed-source component on Windows. In this case, the SDK would be licensed as MIT on Linux and use the .NET Library License on Windows. It is better to have more open licenses than less. | ||
| - It is OK for the source and binary licenses not to match. For example, the source might be Apache 2 but ships as an MIT binary The third party notices file should capture the Apache 2 license. This only works for a permissive licenses, however, we have limited the project to that class of licenses already. The value of this approach is that binary licenses are uniform. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
missing period after 'binary'
* Update link in Contributions section Previous link went to 404 * Remove link to removed document Also removed text referring to link. Relevant PR: dotnet/coreclr#11944
