Re: [ecf-dev] Initial upload of jSLP provider to ecf1.osuosl.org

[Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pete, Thomas,
Maybe I misled someone here - we (the EMO) only need an IP review when a piece of code is moving from one project to another project, not when the same project is changing repository types (CVS -> SVN).  And the IP review for moving code from one project to another is just to verify that the IP issues are the same in destination project - it's not a full Release Review style IP review.

The issue is this: if the code is moving from an incubating project and is under parallel ip (thus not yet reviewed) and is moving to a project that is post-review, then the moving code could bring the destination project backwards in terms of "IP cleanliness". If both projects are incubating, it's a no brainer. If the moving code has been reviewed (even if the source project has not), it's a no brainer. Even if the issue of "dirty" code comes up, all that needs to happen is for Janet's team to flag it in their files so that when a release review comes around it's checked again.

Sorry to have muddied the waters - hope this email helps,
Bjorn

Pete Mackie wrote:

At 09:10 AM 10/15/2007, Thomas Hallgren wrote:

Hi Pete,

Pete Mackie wrote:

Also, the Eclipse Foundation would require a complete IP audit of all source code moving over to a SVN repository as the CVS source code transistion records are being replaced. At least, I suggest checking with Bjorn on this matter.

Not sure I understand why IP would be involved when moving source from one Eclipse repo to another. We (Buckminster) did not do this and the issue never came up when we moved. Nothing is added to the code so why would this matter from an IP standpoint?

Thomas,

Good question! I can't answer this. I was only repeating what Bjorn stated to me, via email, a little over a year ago when I was proposing moving the ECF code from a CVS to SVN repository.

I'll defer this question to Bjorn. Perhaps its no longer an issue for the Eclipse Foundation.

Pete

--

[end of message]