Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 12105] lucene-core Version: 6.1.0 (ATO CQ12024)

On 10/13/2016 11:41 AM, Roland Grunberg wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been done in the past but could an ATO CQ
be approved while the original CQ has just "checkin" flag enabeld
by legal ?

The lucene 6.1 CQs are all marked as "checkin" as the diff review
is ongoing but this still allows the initial project to check the
code into their repos/builds.

I am noticing clear use of the term "approved CQs" as a pre-requisite
for filing ATO CQs, but in a sense, legal has approved them to be


If I understand what you are asking, historically, we in Tools PMC will approve a "piggy back" CQ no matter what the state of the original CQ. The reason being that the PMC approving basically means "yes, we the PMC approve the IP Staff to spend their time on this". In other words, our approval doesn't mean a project can check in the code, or anything -- just that we agree it is appropriate to be reviewed -- and in our experience it is well understood the Piggy back one "follows" or is conditional on the state of the original one (both to IP staff and the committers).

So, in this case, if original says "check in", I think fine to also "check in" to Orbit. In theory, there is a flag in IP log that encodes "status" which should be accurate, but since it is not displayed I am not sure too many people are strict about it. (There is a bug, somewhere, that we should display that status value).

I hope this covers what you were asking.

Back to the top