"Right thing to do" is a good starting point.
The IP Team, however, depends on the PMC to make a call with regard
to whether or not something meets the definition of "works with". I
think that this is a technical call.
Does, for example, the project software make sense if the dependency
is absent?
There's more to the definition of "works with", but I think that's
all we're concerned about with this batch.
Wayne
On 07/10/14 11:33 PM, Doug Schaefer
wrote:
I'm OK with the technical sense part. But I don't feel
qualified to prescreen requests for any IP rules. Especially
since I get confused by what's allowed in my commercial product
versus what's allowed at Eclipse. So I'll stick to the technical
part and for Titan, all these requests make
technical/architectural sense that they're the right thing to
do. These are all common libraries that a commercial product on
would depend on and redistribute if necessary.
Well... we do have a lot of documentation...
Grouping is more of a convenience. It's not required,
but--rather--an attempt to make it easy to identify a large number
of build and test dependencies without having to create a whole
bunch of CQs.
There's no reason to consolidate now. In fact, consolidating will
just make more work for everybody.
This is an example of something that we need to do a better job of
disseminating to save everybody some time and energy. It's on my
list (but has been for a while, unfortunately).
Frankly, it's the PMC's job to "pre-screen" CQs for the IP Team.
In the case of a works-with or exempt pre-req designation, the IP
Team depends on the PMC to make sure that the request makes
technical sense and to best of the PMC's ability determine that it
fits the definition.
HTH,
Wayne
On 07/10/14 02:30 PM, David M
Williams wrote:
Thanks Wayne, not sure I was aware of that
document ... or ... I was aware but have forgotten.
The part of that document that I like best is "Test and build
dependencies may be grouped together in a single
contribution questionnaire (CQ) " :)
Perhaps the IP Team can help "pre-screen" CQs and direct
projects to do that grouping, if in fact the project agrees the
rest of the conditions are met (i.e. not distributed, not in
scm, open source only, on build machine only, etc.). It would
have made it easier in this case to know what to review real
carefully ... and which were almost automatically ok (I guess
the PMC then just has to sanity check, that it is "open source",
etc. -- I don't know, there might be other cases of
"incompatible licenses" ... but, don't think that is PMC's
responsibility to catch).
Elemér, I don't mean to cause you even more work than you've
done already ... which, is a lot! But, it might help to have
your "build and test only, not distributed" items "grouped" in
one CQ, if you think it'd help you (and us) keep track of
"current status".
Thanks again,
From: Wayne Beaton
<wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date: 10/07/2014 02:11 PM
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 8768] flex 2.5.39- as "works
with" exception to full IP review
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
FYI,
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Re
sources/IP/Test_and_Build_Dependencies
TL;DR: Build and test dependencies can be classified as "works
with"
Wayne
On 07/10/14 12:12 AM, David M Williams wrote:
Same as Bison, if this is a development time dependency only,
not checked into Git, and not distributed, then sounds ok as
"works with", to me.
(I'm not even sure "development time only" dependencies are
technically "works with", or ... if there is some better
classification ... but, I believe as long as not put in Git
repo, and not distributed with project, that there are not many
limits on "development time only" tools.)
From: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date: 10/03/2014 03:41 PM
Subject: [tools-pmc] [CQ 8768] flex 2.5.39- as "works
with" exception to full IP review
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.
org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8768
Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
changed:
What |Removed |Added
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Severity|new |awaiting_pmc
--- Comment #3 from Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
2014-10-03 15:41:01 ---
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.
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse
.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse
.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
 _______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinf
o/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
 |
