| Re: [tools-pmc] Contributions 'under the supervision of the PMC' |
The definition from Wayne, that Roland pointed us to (thanks, Roland) sounds good to me. To quote Wayne:
</quote>
"... a contribution to have been developed "under the supervision of the PMC" if the code was written in response to a pre-existing bug (i.e. the code was written after the bug was created), or if the code was written to address a specific plan item (i.e. the plan item being documented before the code was written), or if the code represents the natural evolution of some existing functionality."
<quote>
I think the point of his definition is that it is a "natural" part of the project, not "a new contribution of an unexpected function". I think that would cover 98% of the cases? (Just guessing).
So, this still requires some judgement call on the committers part (Alexander, in this case).
I'd say if it is not clear what choice to make, under the above guideline, then it should be submitted as a CQ (you know, "when in doubt take the conservative route"). I believe those CQs are normally are done fairly quickly (such as 3 days or so).
I'd hate to think committers were "getting around" submitting a CQ though unnaturally means. For example, I have heard rumors that some people encourage others to "break up" a contribution (such as leave the "test code" separate from the "fixed code") so that doesn't exceed the line limit.
So, most of all, if there are cases that seem onerous or result in along delays (over a week or so), please bring those to our attention too.
Other PMC members, please explicitly state if you agree, or want to refine the statements about our "policy" above.
Thanks,
From: Alexander Nyßen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 04/11/2016 07:48 AM
Subject: [tools-pmc] Contributions 'unter the supervision of the PMC'
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Tools PMC,
I have received a couple of patches from an itemis colleague in the past weeks. While the patches were produced (and applied) one by one and neither exceeded the 1000 LOC limit, I was wondering how to correctly handle patches that would exceed the 1000 LOC limit.
Looking at the Eclipse IP process, the following case could apply, dependent on the ‚supervision’ policy of the PMC (all other constraints hold): "Written 100% by employees of the same employer as the Submitting Committer: (a) under the supervision of the PMC; and (b) where the employer has signed a Member Committer Agreement.“
Could you please elaborate whether a contribution of this kind would in general be regarded as being ‚supervised‘ by the Tools PMC, or rather, which conditions would have to be met if this is not the case?
Regards
Alexander
--
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Dipl.-Inform.
Principal Engineer
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743
http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen
Rechtlicher Hinweis:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino
[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________
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