Hi all,
concerning the CQ issue, I’ve talked
Sharon Corbett of the Eclipse IP team who has been really supportive.
She said that, as Mickael already
suspected, CQs only have to be created if:
-
there is third party code or
cryptography involved
-
some of the code has been
written by non-committers (contributors)
-
some of the code has been
written outside/before the JWT project
If this is not the case, these important
points remain:
-
The submission should be under
the supervision of the PMC. Sharon talked to Wayne who said that it is not
necessary to post on the PMC mailing list if the PMC is informed about the
ongoing development in the project, however it should be posted on the dev
mailing list and a bugzilla entry with attached code should be created.
-
The submitted files must have
all necessary copyright information like correct headers and be published under
the EPL.
Effectively, for us this means:
-
We can submit code that
conforms(!) to the aforementioned requirements at any time and we do NOT need
to write CQs for these components
-
The IP team was under the
impression that the currently pending CQs were entered because the code came
from outside JWT. I’m not quite sure if this is the case or not since
Florian submitted most of them. If this is actually not true, then the CQs can
be discarded and we can include these components in JWT 0.5.0. However, we have
to wait until Florian comes back since he has to confirm himself that the code
complies to the requirements.
-
All in all this means that we can
probably release the transformation components as part of 0.5.0 a few days
after the workflow editor (when Florian comes back) and we do not have to write
CQs for new components like examples for extension points.
Nevertheless, Sharon encouraged us not to
hesitate to contact the Eclipse team if something IP releated seems not quite clear
and also suggested to take a look at the visualized eclipse legal process:
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
Regards,
Christian