Re: [orbit-dev] CQs, CQs and more CQs
Thanks for the friendly kick in the pants.
The following three new CQs will together account for 18 more bundles:
LPG Java Runtime 1.0:
LPG Java Runtime 1.1:
Christian W. Damus
Component Lead, Eclipse OCL and EMF MQ/MT/VF
IBM Rational Sofware
Sent by: To
02/05/2008 04:35 [orbit-dev] CQs, CQs and more CQs
Please respond to
If you are responsible for a bundle in Orbit then this message concerns
you. If you are not, you might want to read on anyway to get some more
IP insight ...
Fact: Each project consuming a third-party library MUST enter a CQ for
that library for that project regardless of whether or not that library
is already in use approved for use in another project.
Fact: There are currently 31 FIXED (i.e., approved) CQs attributed to
the Orbit project
Fact: We ship about 90 actual binary bundles out of Orbit (the rest are
the corresponding source)
Fact: Shipped - Approved should = 0
Fact: 90 - 31 != 0
So, what do we do. In many cases the situation is simple, the bundles
in Orbit have CQs but the CQs are for some other project. To fix that
situation we simply enter CQs for Orbit that "piggyback" off the
original CQ. That will account for much of the difference.
The others likely are not in the IP log yet
This requires the person responsible for the bundle in Orbit to enter a
CQ or find a corresponding CQ and piggyback off it. In most cases I
expect there will already be a CQ to piggyback so it should be easy.
There will be a few left over that we'll have to deal with but lets see
how that looks once we have covered all the easy ones.
As a motivator we will have to remove from Orbit any bundles that do not
have IP log entries complete with CQs by M6 -1 (here I mean the Eclipse
project M6 (March 28). For those without a calendar, M6 -1 is EclipseCon
week so if you own a bundle and are going to EclipseCon, you'd best get
your bundles/CQs/IPlog entries in order before then. Why delay? Do it
Questions and comments to this list please.
orbit-dev mailing list