I believe that the Contribution Questionnaire page in the wiki [1]
answers this. If it is unclear, either take a crack at clarifying it
yourself or let me know I can take another run at it.
The short version is that you need CQ for any library that project
code uses directly. You do not require a CQ for any library that is
used indirectly via another Eclipse project. I spelled this out in
more detail on the wiki page.
CQs are version-specific. You need a CQ for each version of
a library that project code uses.
It doesn't matter where project code comes from. If a tool like
Xtext generates project code (i.e. code that goes into your source
code repository, or dynamically-generated code that gets distributed
in compiled form) that uses a library, this is considered a direct
reference.
HTH,
Wayne
[1]
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Contribution_Questionnaire
On 05/17/2013 02:31 AM, Ed Willink
wrote:
Hi
Wayne
Can you clarify the policy on library piggy-back CQs?
For MDT/OCL we initially used Guava indirectly through Xtext and
so might not need a PB CQ although we did raise one since Xtext
auto-generates source code for us with direct calls to the
Injector class. Subsequently we have some manually written code
that exploits Guava too.
Our PB CQ has not updated from version 10, although Guava in Orbit
is charging along through 11, 12 with 14 on the horizon.
Are we at fault through not raising more PB CQs? Do I
misunderstand the policy? Is the policy inappropriate for major
evolving libraries?
Regards
Ed Willink
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|