Hi all,
Just a note to let you know that I’ll be releasing Chef early next
week after I arrive back home in New Zealand from my trip to Opscode HQ.
Apologies for the delay, I know a lot of you are looking forward to
the crucial fixes we’ve rolled into this release (http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF/fixforversion/10016
).
There are a few tickets still outstanding so if you’re thinking of
contributing, this is the free weekend you needed… 
–
AJ Christensen, Software Engineer
Opscode, Inc.
E: aj@opscode.com
On 11/07/2009, at 08.58, Arjuna Christensen wrote:
Hi all,
Just a note to let you know that I'll be releasing Chef early next
week after I arrive back home in New Zealand from my trip to Opscode
HQ.
Apologies for the delay, I know a lot of you are looking forward to
the crucial fixes we've rolled into this release (http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF/fixforversion/10016
).
There are a few tickets still outstanding so if you're thinking of
contributing, this is the free weekend you needed.. 
Speaking about contributing
I know I've said this before, but I would really love to see http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-269
fixed, since it prohibits use of remote_file with signed S3 urls.
Since it's a one line fix (described in the ticket) already is it
really necessary to go through all the paperwork to get this one
included?
/Jeppe
Sadly, it is. We keep those records so stringently because it's
essential to license enforcement - the copyright and patent sections
of the license have lots more value with the CLAs.
I know it's a pain, but it's worth doing for the certainty it provides
everyone who uses Chef.
Regards,
Adam
On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen jeppe@ingolfs.dk
wrote:
Speaking about contributing
I know I've said this before, but I would really love to see http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-269
fixed, since it prohibits use of remote_file with signed S3 urls.
Since it's a one line fix (described in the ticket) already is it
really necessary to go through all the paperwork to get this one
included?
If it helps,they let me take a picture of the CLA with my digicam and email
that in. Helped me a bunch 'cause I have access to scanner at work but it
was friday night.
Cheers,
Dan DeLeo
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Adam Jacob adam@opscode.com wrote:
Sadly, it is. We keep those records so stringently because it's essential
to license enforcement - the copyright and patent sections of the license
have lots more value with the CLAs.
I know it's a pain, but it's worth doing for the certainty it provides
everyone who uses Chef.
Regards,
Adam
On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen jeppe@ingolfs.dk wrote:
Speaking about contributing
I know I've said this before, but I would really love to see http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-269
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-269 fixed, since it prohibits use
of remote_file with signed S3 urls.
Since it's a one line fix (described in the ticket) already is it really
necessary to go through all the paperwork to get this one included?
Ok, signed CLA is on it's way
Still, I'm a little unsure about the next steps to get this one fixed:
Is a fork on github necessary (remember, it's a one line fix ?
Even if I need to follow the process to the letter (http://wiki.opscode.com/display/opscode/Contributing
), it seems like I cannot change any properties on the ticket in Jira
/Jeppe
On 13/07/2009, at 00.49, Adam Jacob wrote:
Sadly, it is. We keep those records so stringently because it's
essential to license enforcement - the copyright and patent sections
of the license have lots more value with the CLAs.
I know it's a pain, but it's worth doing for the certainty it
provides everyone who uses Chef.
Regards,
Adam
On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen jeppe@ingolfs.dk
wrote:
Speaking about contributing
I know I've said this before, but I would really love to see http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-269
fixed, since it prohibits use of remote_file with signed S3 urls.
Since it's a one line fix (described in the ticket) already is it
really necessary to go through all the paperwork to get this one
included?
Hiya,
On 13/07/2009, at 7:48 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
Ok, signed CLA is on it's way
Awesome!
Still, I'm a little unsure about the next steps to get this one
fixed: Is a fork on github necessary (remember, it's a one line
fix ?
Please do - while this does appear to be a one line fix, I believe
you've not taken the tests (Rspec specifications) that currently
validate the behaviour into account.
I outlined a process for 'Working with Git' on an Opscode project @ http://wiki.opscode.com/display/opscode/Working+with+Git
Even if I need to follow the process to the letter (http://wiki.opscode.com/display/opscode/Contributing
), it seems like I cannot change any properties on the ticket in Jira
Once your CLA is processed you'll be granted developer status, which
gives you the ability to edit and resolve tickets.
/Jeppe
On 13/07/2009, at 00.49, Adam Jacob wrote:
Sadly, it is. We keep those records so stringently because it's
essential to license enforcement - the copyright and patent
sections of the license have lots more value with the CLAs.
I know it's a pain, but it's worth doing for the certainty it
provides everyone who uses Chef.
Regards,
Adam
On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen jeppe@ingolfs.dk
wrote:
Speaking about contributing
I know I've said this before, but I would really love to see http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-269
fixed, since it prohibits use of remote_file with signed S3 urls.
Since it's a one line fix (described in the ticket) already is it
really necessary to go through all the paperwork to get this one
included?
--
AJ Christensen, Software Engineer
Opscode, Inc.
E: aj@opscode.com