Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [iot-pmc] Using newer version of already approved works-with dependency
Apologies for delay on responding.  

We have no issue applying the "and later versions" to all existing IOT Workswith CQs in the system; however, its not a general default/waiver.  

We can perform this action on our side fairly quickly and easily.  Please let us know if you would like that to happen.

New requests should include the "and later versions" at creation.

Best Regards,
Sharon


On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Hudalla Kai (INST/ECS4) <kai.hudalla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2018-04-23 at 11:54 -0400, Sharon Corbett wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> From the IP Corner...
>
> Workswith CQs - There is no issue regarding appending "and later versions" to
> Workswith CQs generally.  Feel free to do so at creation.
>

That is great news, Sharon! Is there any reason why we cannot simply consider all
works-with CQs approved for the specific version the request has been created for
and all newer versions by default? If not, is there a way for us to turn
existing, already approved, works-with CQs into this kind of "waiver"?

> Type A CQs - Remain version specific and adhere to the same Board Resolution as
> Type B CQs.  Service releases of third party libs which have already been
> resolved (approved or licensed_certified) require no review.  See extra context
> here [1] [2].
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> [1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Contribution_Questionnaire#T
> hird_Party_Libraries
> [2] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/
>
> Best Regards,
> Sharon
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Jens Reimann <jreimann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Hudalla Kai (INST/ECS4) <kai.hudalla@bosch-s
> > i.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 09:46 +0200, Jens Reimann wrote:
> > > > I absolutely like the idea!
> > > >
> > > > I would hope that we can go even one step further and apply the same for
> > > > regular Type_A CQs. As long as the license doesn't change that should not
> > > have
> > > > any impact (as least from my limited legal perspective).
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think for Type A pre-req CQs it's a little different because the source
> > > code is
> > > actually scanned for "hints" regarding the effective license that the code
> > > is
> > > under. So, if new code is added in a newer version, then new "hints" for
> > > additional licenses might show up.
> >
> > That is true. But it would make our life so much easier. So maybe we can at
> > least explore the idea
> > for micro version updates. Still something could sneak in there. And it
> > definitely is not appropriate
> > for Type_B. And I do know that not all dependencies adhere to the idea of
> > major.minor.micro. And if
> > something comes up later on, it has to be corrected or pulled.
> >
> > But I would hope that it could be an acceptable risk for Type_A projects to
> > approve e.g. "FooBar 1.2.x".
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iot-pmc mailing list
> > iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> > this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc

Back to the top