Skip to content

Conversation

@christian-bromann
Copy link
Contributor

Some minor updates on the policies.

Copy link
Member

@diemol diemol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I left a few comments.

- Double-check you are not sharing confidential information
- Avoid contributions with information or code that gives us an advantage over competitors
- Only sign whitelisted CLAs, reach out to the Open Source team for advice
- Please associate your commit with your saucelabs.com email unless you have a history of contributing to the repo under a different email before your employment at Sauce Lavs. [How to associate your commit with a saucelabs.com email.](https://help.github.com/articles/setting-your-email-in-git/)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why? What is the reasoning behind this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is more an advise than a strict requirement. However if someone from Sauce makes an upstream patch, this patch should be associated with a Sauce Labs email since it is made out of someones working hours.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This would be too tricky to control, should people commit with a different email during the weekends?
I am fine if the wording is changed to declare that this is a suggestion.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I sent out an email to our legal team to get more information on that. By Californian law for example everything an engineer in our HQ puts on GitHub is owned by Sauce Labs, no matter if it is on the weekend or during the week. This is different for other countries which is why I requested support from legal.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this should be added after we hear from Legal about this. I still don't understand what is the point of making this a requirement. We could make the requirement that the GitHub user belongs to a Sauce Labs managed GitHub org.
(Also, there is a typo on the Sauce Labs name)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The typo is fixed.

I tried to soften the wording to make it not sound like a requirement. However we should strongly encourage employees to have their commits signed with a Sauce email when they do work for Sauce Labs. This is just standard procedure in many companies.

@christian-bromann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@diemol updated PR

Copy link
Member

@diemol diemol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I reopened one conversation because I think that part should not be changed before Legal gives us advice on it.

Copy link
Member

@diemol diemol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we will get a push back on signing commits with Sauce email, but let's see what people say.

@diemol diemol merged commit 5285b31 into dev Jul 7, 2020
@diemol diemol deleted the cb-policy-updates branch July 7, 2020 20:01
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 7, 2020
* update policies

* PR feedback

Co-authored-by: Diego Molina <[email protected]> 5285b31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants