Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 8009] swtchart Version: 0.9

The meaning of "minor version change" in this context (the context "parallel IP") is a little different than our use of the phrase in programming. According to the IP staff's process, I believe, if the version is only "service" or "minor" field change, they assume that "not much has changed" and thus allow the parallel IP process to be followed until they finish full review ... and of course, if they found that "half the code changed" or something, I'm sure they'd let us know and "pull back" from parallel IP process. The only written reference I could find easily was this sentence:

"Mature projects may use parallel IP if the contribution represents a minor change to a previously approved packaged."


though suspect there's more said somewhere.

And, of course, the IP staff, I'm sure, would appreciate knowing if it was not a "minor change" (I think they call it a "minor rev") if the submitter happened to know that even though "minor field" only change, that there were actually large and substantial changes. Conversely, it helps to specifically ask for "parallel IP process for minor revisions" if submitter knows it to be relatively small changes (to fix bugs or add small functions)

I'm no lawyer. :)  but hope that clarifies what I meant.

From:        Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        02/27/2014 07:33 PM
Subject:        Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 8009] swtchart Version: 0.9
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

My only comment is that we can’t assume that semantic version numbers are used by external projects, so the version shouldn’t be used to decide if it’s a minor update or not.


On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:15 PM, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As we agreed at last meeting, here's my "discussion" ... I think this should be approved. In fact, since 0.7 is already in Orbit, this 0.9 version might qualify for "minor" increment, thus qualify for parallel IP? The only question I'd ask submitter to make clear is if this required for Luna, or post-Luna.

Any objections? Other view?


02/27/2014 02:00 PM
[tools-pmc] [CQ 8009] swtchart Version: 0.9
Sent by:        

Genie Eclipse <
genie@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

         What    |Removed                     |Added
         Severity|new                         |awaiting_pmc

--- Comment #5 from Genie Eclipse <
genie@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2014-02-27 14:00:02 ---
This CQ is currently awaiting PMC Approval. PMC members, please use the
PMC_Approved flag on this CQ to indicate your approval (flag set to "+") or
disapproval (flag set to "-").

Configure CQmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.
tools-pmc mailing list


tools-pmc mailing list

tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top