Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Improving license check for dependencies

Huh, always figured it was a part of it since the Runtime mission was so tied up in it.

Regardless, my point stands as I think it is a bit off to expect leaders of other projects on a PMC to make the call regarding nuances like how a given dependency relates to a project they are not strictly involved in.  The developers and leaders of a project are the right people and there needs to be a check, given that PLs are responsible for a project following the rules there should be a +1 for a Project Leader of a project instead of a +1 from the PMC.


jesse mcconnell

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:38 AM Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Equinox is not part of Runtime (RT). The Eclipse top-level project handles Equinox CQs and we do understand the CQs.


From:        Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        "" <>
Date:        08.04.2020 20:49
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [] Improving license check for        dependencies
Sent by:

The intent is to have the PMC decide whether or not the CQ makes technical sense. Specifically, the IP Team depends on the PMC to confirm that the requested dependency is indeed, for example, a prerequisite (and not, say, a works with). The EMO and IP Team are not generally able to make that assessment. 

I can see the intent but I question if the PMC is the appropriate gatekeeper to decide if a CQ is filed correctly.  Perhaps it is different for each PMC but from the Runtime perspective, I wouldn't expect anyone on Equinox to take the time to understand how any given CQ would relate to Jetty, at least to the level where they would diagnose that sort of nuance.

 _______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top