Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Dates, review documentation, etc. for Mars

Sorry for the delay. I received a response from the IP Team.

In this scenario, for Mars - Piggyback CQs are required; for Luna SR2 - no action required.




From: Wayne Beaton [mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: February-13-15 3:09 PM
To: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Dates, review documentation, etc. for Mars


Hello IP Team. Can have your opinion here.

For starters, I know that they need CQs for the mentioned libraries.

The question is what do they do when another project pushes a different version of the libraries on them? A project may build against one version of a library and include it in their downloads. Then, they're combined with another project's bits in the simultaneous release repository which also contains a different version of the library.

In this scenario, do they need a new piggy back CQ?



-------- Forwarded Message --------


Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Dates, review documentation, etc. for Mars


Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:27:19 +0100


Carsten Reckord <reckord@xxxxxxxx>


Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


Yatta Solutions GmbH


Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


On 09.02.2015 19:30, Wayne Beaton wrote:
> You do not generally need a CQ for a library that you use indirectly as a result 
> of pulling in the bits from another Eclipse project that uses the library 
> directly. You only require a CQ for libraries that your project code uses 
> directly. Clever reflection tricks constitute direct use.
I have a question about this.
I'm trying to sort out what to do about our (MPC's) slightly convoluted
dependencies to Apache HttpComponents Client and Core. MPC consumes those in
two ways: indirectly via P2 and directly via package imports.
Historically, we haven't pulled in a specific version or included the
library in our download bits/repository, but rely on the platform to provide
a version. I think that's somewhat bad form and plan to change it for Mars
accordingly (piggyback CQs are coming up).
In the meantime, Platform has changed its shipped version between Luna SR1
and SR2. So while nothing has changed in MPC's dependency, it'll technically
run with the new version in SR2. Does this mean I should
a) do nothing for Luna SR2
b) file a piggyback CQ for the new Apache HttpComponents versions
c) dto and request our CQ for the old version to be marked obsolete?
Best regards,
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit


Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
EclipseCon 2015



Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation

Back to the top