[
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
|
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
