Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] Request for approval to have an AspectJ 1.8 release review

Thanks Wayne. Those reminders helps to lessen my objection.

I do still think it'd be a good idea to let it shake out a little ... but I'm fine leaving that up to AspectJ to decide.

So, again, no objection from me (and Doug has already given a +1) so my words are just meant as advice.

In either case, compliments to AspecJ and best of luck.


From:        Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        04/10/2014 12:13 PM
Subject:        Re: [tools-pmc] Request for approval to have an AspectJ 1.8 release review
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

There is a rule. But it's tied to the IP Policy. If something hasn't been released, then it hasn't passed IP scrutiny (i.e. no IP Log review) and so can't be included in the release.

Given this, there is a bit of work around with regard to Orbit bundles. If the bundle that we're concerned with has otherwise passed IP muster (and the project has an approved CQ for its use), then a project can include it in its release. There's no rule in the EDP or IP Policy that says that dependencies have to come from Orbit.



On 04/10/2014 11:03 AM, David M Williams wrote:
[Wayne, please advise if there is anything in EDP, one way or the other, that speaks to this "releases must use only released versions of other Eclipse dependencies" ... and if not, if we should open a bug to add it to the next version of EDP.]

Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects,
The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about
Eclipse Projects
          France 2014_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top