Re: [tools-pmc] Request for approval to have an AspectJ 1.8 release revi

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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. 

Thanks, 




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.

HTH,

Wayne

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

_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc