Check if the issue owner is in the AUTHORS file in PRESUBMIT.py

Check if the issue owner is in the AUTHORS file in PRESUBMIT.py

BUG=skia:2072
NOTRY=true
(SkipBuildbotRuns)

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/skia/source/detail?r=13277

[rmistry, 2014-02-03 13:26:34]

Adding hcm@ to validate the error msg that is printed if an issue owner is not
in the AUTHORS file:

** Presubmit ERRORS **
The user ravimist@gmail.com is not in Skia's AUTHORS file.
Issue owner, this CL must include an addition to the Skia AUTHORS file.
Googler reviewers, please check that the AUTHORS entry corresponds to an email
address in http://goto/cla-signers. If it does not then ask the issue owner to
sign the CLA at http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html
(individual) or http://code.google.com/legal/corporate-cla-v1.0.html
(corporate).

Heather, does the above look right to you? The CLA messaging will be removed
once the commit queue has the CLA checking feature (once go/signcla is done).

[borenet, 2014-02-03 13:53:59]

Code LGTM, but I don't really like the message. Additionally, it seems like the
AUTHORS file format could be more machine-readable:

Google Inc. <*@google.com>

Could be written:

*@google.com # Google Inc

But I guess we're inheriting that format from upstream?

https://codereview.chromium.org/131293005/diff/40002/PRESUBMIT.py
File PRESUBMIT.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/131293005/diff/40002/PRESUBMIT.py#newcode145
PRESUBMIT.py:145: % owner_email))
I think this message could be worded more clearly, but I don't have a good
suggestion...

[hcm, 2014-02-03 13:59:24]

On 2014/02/03 13:53:59, borenet wrote:
> Code LGTM, but I don't really like the message. Additionally, it seems like
the
> AUTHORS file format could be more machine-readable:
> 
> Google Inc. <mailto:*@google.com>
> 
> Could be written:
> 
> mailto:*@google.com # Google Inc
> 
> But I guess we're inheriting that format from upstream?
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/131293005/diff/40002/PRESUBMIT.py
> File PRESUBMIT.py (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/131293005/diff/40002/PRESUBMIT.py#newcode145
> PRESUBMIT.py:145: % owner_email))
> I think this message could be worded more clearly, but I don't have a good
> suggestion...

Message LGTM, I cannot think of a clearer way to state it.  The links are fine
and redirect to the right place, though I think the ones they want us to use
today for v1.1 and beyond of the CLAs are
https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual and
https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/corporate

@Eric, We are inheriting this format and I engaged with open source/legal on
making it more machine readable, but they were not willing to let us change it
at this time, in order to meet their own requirements of having it readable and
consistent for the copyright team.

[borenet, 2014-02-03 14:00:43]

On 2014/02/03 13:59:24, hcm wrote:
> On 2014/02/03 13:53:59, borenet wrote:
> > Code LGTM, but I don't really like the message. Additionally, it seems like
> the
> > AUTHORS file format could be more machine-readable:
> > 
> > Google Inc. <mailto:*@google.com>
> > 
> > Could be written:
> > 
> > mailto:*@google.com # Google Inc
> > 
> > But I guess we're inheriting that format from upstream?
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/131293005/diff/40002/PRESUBMIT.py
> > File PRESUBMIT.py (right):
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/131293005/diff/40002/PRESUBMIT.py#newcode145
> > PRESUBMIT.py:145: % owner_email))
> > I think this message could be worded more clearly, but I don't have a good
> > suggestion...
> 
> Message LGTM, I cannot think of a clearer way to state it.  The links are fine
> and redirect to the right place, though I think the ones they want us to use
> today for v1.1 and beyond of the CLAs are
> https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual and
> https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/corporate
> 
> @Eric, We are inheriting this format and I engaged with open source/legal on
> making it more machine readable, but they were not willing to let us change it
> at this time, in order to meet their own requirements of having it readable
and
> consistent for the copyright team.

SGTM

[rmistry, 2014-02-03 14:16:56]

Updated the links @patchset4 as recommended by hcm@

[rmistry, 2014-02-03 14:18:16]

The CQ bit was checked by rmistry@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-03 14:18:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/rmistry@google.com/131293005/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-03 14:18:34]

Change committed as 13277

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-03 14:18:39]

CQ bit was unchecked on CL. Ignoring.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-03 14:18:40]

CQ bit was unchecked on CL. Ignoring.