[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[iot-pmc] [CQ 21538] Eclipse zenoh initial contribution
|
http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21538
--- Comment #16 from Kai Hudalla <kai.hudalla@xxxxxxxx> 2020-02-14 04:51:55 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi PMC,
>
> Few questions about the CQ for dependencies that we are preparing:
>
> 1) Should we wait for a +1 for this initial contribution before to issue the CQ
> for dependencies ? (BTW what is the progress wrt. the review of his initial
> contribution?)
>
No, you can (should) start right away with the CQs for your third part deps.
> 3) Do we need CQ only for dependencies that are required by user at runtime
> (i.e. when using our binaries) or also for dependencies that are used to build
> our project, to test it, to benchmark it or to build its documentation (e.g.
> CMake, Maven plugins, JUnit, Sphinx
) ?
>
You need to have all of the dependencies in your IP log. The usual way of
getting them there is via CQs. However, since the Foundation has changed its IP
policy last year, I cannot give you an authoritative answer to your question
anymore.
@IP Team: what process do you suggest for the zenoh project to get their deps
into the IP log?
> 2) We have more than 50 dependencies in various languages (OCaml, Java, Go,
> Python).
> Few could be piggybacked (mainly depending on result of CQ
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21517). Some will be «
> work-with » dependencies (e.g. SQL client libs: we support either PostgreSQL,
> SQLITE3 or MariaDB).
> Shall we do 1 CQ per dependency, or can we group them ? If we group: either all
> in 1 CQ or either 1 CQ per « category » (piggyback, work-with, prerequisite) ?
>
> Thanks!
>
--
Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.
