Re: [rt-pmc] Fwd: [CQ 4044] org.apache.commons.logging Version: 1.1.1

[Mike Keith <michael.keith@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In our meeting today these were deemed to be "works with" dependencies 
since even though they may be permanently stored on the build/test 
server they are neither released nor visible to project consumers.

On 5/3/2010 3:33 PM, Mike Keith wrote:
> I would think so.
>
> I found the two categories of dependencies a little sparse. What about 
> dependencies that are not being shipped or put in a repo, but that are 
> downloaded into a local maven repo during unit testing? A "works with" 
> label is clearly closer to the truth than a "pre-req" as far as a 
> consumer runtime environment goes, but on the other hand, the tests 
> require that the dependency be present...
>
> On 5/3/2010 3:09 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
> > I'm happy to call this a works with.  FWIW, the other day I did 
> > observe this general class of situation to the IP team and EMO.  I've 
> > not heard back as yet.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > On 2010-05-03, at 2:19 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >
> > > Barb asked for us to have the following discussion... I am inclined to
> > > agree I suppose based on that this is a bit different then the typical
> > > virgo 'going into svn for use in release' scenario of the lionshare of
> > > other virgo dependencies...
> > >
> > > which all of that is a topic for Wednesday I believe as well, least I
> > > thought it was...
> > >
> > > anyway, anyone have any thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > jesse
> > >
> > > --- Comment #6 from Barb Cochrane<barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 2010-05-03 14:14:26 ---
> > > Hey Jesse, Bob,
> > >
> > > If this package is not going into the Eclipse repository, and is not 
> > > being
> > > shipped as part of the project, then it sounds like this might be a 
> > > "workswith"
> > > or "exempt pre-req" candidate as defined by Eclipse Guidelines for 
> > > Third Party
> > > Dependencies.
> > >
> > > http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf 
> > >
> > >
> > > There should be a transparent discussion on the PMC mailing list to 
> > > determine
> > > into which category this package falls. I'll remove +1 from the PMC 
> > > field on
> > > this CQ until that happens.  Once the determination is made, Jesse 
> > > can you
> > > please update this CQ with the decision, your +1 and a link to the 
> > > discussion?
> > > We can continue processing the CQ after we see that.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Barb
> > >
> > > Auto-Generated Text:  IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Configure CQmail: 
> > > http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> > > You are on the CC list for the CQ.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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