Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [technology-pmc] All the IAM CQs

Eugene, maybe you can provide a roadmap and a tentative layout of how the maven embedder and its dependecies is expected to look? Information would be very valuable to know what is a mistake and what isn't.

Something that is not acceptable for us is to remain seated. Making incremental progress on the IAM side to match incremental pogress on the Maven side sounds like the right thing to me.

Since we are want to continue development on the open, we need to follow Eclipse rules. The Eclipse Foundation asks us to do frequent releases, and to release only code that has been successfully IP reviewed.

Finally, it would be interesting to work closer with maven developers, but our focus is on maven integration. If we have spare cycles to work on maven, rest asured that we will, as we have done in the past, but presently getting IAM rolling is our priority. At the very least, IAM can be used as a proof of concept for the changes in Maven 3.0, from early on.

I would like to reduce the ammount of work that PMC and IP Team need to do, but with the current process I don't think we can (good news is that, although there are a lot of jars, most of them are really small, so code triage should not be all that bad).

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Eugene Kuleshov <eu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

  Wayne, I am aware of that decision, however as you already noticed you underestimated number of dependencies and I am also pretty sure you also underestimated amount of changes that is going to happen in the Maven code and the structure of its dependencies.
  I think the lesson from this exercise is that IAM team should work closer to the Maven developers. Otherwise they are bound to continue making such mistakes and will continue generating unnecessary load on the PMC and Eclipse legal team.


On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Abel, the IP team, and I discussed this over several weeks and have decided that this is the best way for the project to proceed. Of course, we didn't realize that there'd be 40 bajillion CQs, but maybe we should have asked that question...

FWIW, the backlog with IP DD is such that these CQs will not get a full review for some time.


Eugene Kuleshov wrote:

 Number of those dependencies will either change or go away all together,
so it is premature to process them for any IP issues, because it will cause
unnecessary overhead to PMC and the legal team.


technology-pmc mailing list

Abel Muiño -

Back to the top