[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [technology-pmc] Our role in the IP process
|
In a general sense, I think that the project should have an opportunity
to justify the use of an older version. "We're too lazy" is not a valid
justification. "The latest version is too buggy" is a valid
justification. I'd like to allow for a discussion.
Ultimately, however, I suspect that there are relatively few acceptable
justifications for older versions and it is up to us to make sure that
things get vetted correctly.
Thanks,
Wayne
Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
Wayne Beaton schrieb:
I'm spending some quality time with CQ 2627 [1]. I think that we may
have overstepped our bounds with this CQ.
I'm not sure. In that particular case it makes absolutely no sense
technically to rely on an outdated version on a library. Especially not
when it's a new library to be added to Orbit.
Most reasons for relying on an older version of a library are not
primarily technical reasons. They are mostly related to business
reasons, eg. no time/resource to update, or personal reasons (eg., it
works I don't care anymore).
However, I think it's important for any Open Source project to *support*
the lowest possible version of library but to always ship with the
latest. From my experience a project relying on an outdated version of a
library is less attractive to the community (eg. developers as well as
admins).
As a general rule, the Technology PMC should not approve a CQ unless
there is explicit agreement from the project.
+1. We should not change the CQ and approve it. It must be agreed on
with the stakeholders (i.e. submitters).
Maybe we should start up a Technology PMC Policies wiki page...
+1
-Gunnar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
