| I must have missed some discussion or gotten confused as I did not recall a conclusion on the type of dependency. Thanks for the reiteration.
Jeff
On 2010-02-02, at 4:05 PM, Thomas Watson wrote: I also had a similar comment on the previous thread.
+1 to works with relationship in this case.
Tom
<graycol.gif>Jesse McConnell ---02/02/2010 03:55:57 PM---this is outside of the previous thread we had on this topic? if not
<ecblank.gif>
From: | <ecblank.gif>
Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> |
<ecblank.gif>
To: | <ecblank.gif>
Runtime Project PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
<ecblank.gif>
Date: | <ecblank.gif>
02/02/2010 03:55 PM |
<ecblank.gif>
Subject: | <ecblank.gif>
Re: [rt-pmc] Google API Approval |
this is outside of the previous thread we had on this topic? if not
then my comments there stand for me in that it seems a works with
relationship to me and I support a CQ to that effect
cheers,
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 15:52, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Other PMCers should comment (if they are so inclined) on the "work with" characterization... It is not simply my decision. Just my opinion.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On 2010-02-02, at 3:08 PM, Austin Riddle wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Thanks for the insight and explanation.
>> I have just opened CQ3765 regarding the works-with dependency.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jeff McAffer wrote:
>>> You need a CQ for everything. In this case the PMC is involved at two points. first we help determine if it is a works with or pre-req dependency. Then someone from the PMC approves the CQ requesting the use of the lib as a works with or pre-req dependency as determined in the first step.
>>>
>>> The first step should be somewhat of a "group" decision. It doesn't have to be an official vote etc but simply taking the first +1 seems incomplete. Not to make it complicated but as we have seen, the dependency determination is open to different opinions. The second approval requires only one PMC member to +1 the CQ.
>>>
>>> Austin, you will need to state what kind of dependency you are requesting and why it is that kind of dependency.
>>>
>>> In the interest of expediting this particular approval, from a RAP point of view I think this is a works with dependency. RAP works just fine without this. A particular part of RAP needs the lib but people can use RAP very effectively without that part.
>>>
>>> Note also that if there is part of this code (e.g., the calling side) that you are planning to actually ship from Eclipse.org then I think you will need second CQ for that part as it would would not be a dependency so much as a contribution.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010-02-02, at 1:40 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> AFAIK the part of the CQ process workflow where it needs a +1 from PMC
>>>> member is the only specific blocking point for something like this
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> jesse
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> jesse mcconnell
>>>> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 13:35, Austin Riddle <austin.riddle@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to be a bother, but could anyone tell me what the next step for
>>>>> approving the Google API dependency is?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am expecting the CQ to be approved shortly for the contribution. Does
>>>>> there need to be a separate CQ opened for the Google dependency?
>>>>> Or is it just a matter of obtaining a +1 from the mailing list?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Austin Riddle
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>> Computing and Information Technology Division
>>>>> Texas Center for Applied Technology
>>>>> Texas Engineering Experiment Station
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Austin Riddle
>> Software Engineer
>> Computing and Information Technology Division
>> Texas Center for Applied Technology
>> Texas Engineering Experiment Station
>> Ph. 979-458-7680
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rt-pmc mailing list
>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
|
