Hi Jody.

I believe that this is a standard "pre-req" dependency as the intent is to distribute it from locationtech.org

For pre-req dependencies, it's enough for a member of the PMC to provide approval directly on the CQ without discussion on the mailing list. Discussion is required only for exceptional dependencies (e.g. things that have an unsupported license that need to be classified as either exempt or works-with).

As a PMC we need to decide the rules. Can a PMC member approve their own pre-req dependencies? Some PMC allow this. Other PMCs do not allow PMC members to approve their own CQs. My preference is to assume that the PMC members know what they're doing and let them approve their own CQs.

To approve a CQ, just put a + next to the PMC_Approved flag and click "Issues addressed, return to IP Team".

Based on my understanding that the intent is to distribute this library, that it will be distributed under a supported license, and that there is a technically valid reason to include the library, I've approved it on behalf of the PMC.

It certainly does seem that this contribution can be considered as a single dependency that can be discussed as a unit.

Should we be expecting a release version soon? If yes,

Wayne

The CQ process keeps busting me down waiting for PMC approval - which I understand is a discussion+vote on this list?

http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7342

Genie Eclipse <genie@eclipse.org> changed:

What |Removed |Added

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Severity|new |awaiting_pmc

In this case the uDig project would like to request a dependency on GeoTools 9.0 M0 (this is a milestone release tagged and formally deployed to a maven repository). I am aware of a number of issues with the source code (see the CQ), but this represents our current build target for uDig and we would like to complete our code base migration prior to consider any upgrade of dependencies.

It is noted that subsequent CQs for new versions of this dependency are expected by both the uDig project and GeoScript project.

FORWARD to 9.3

There is a relatively small number of changes between 9.0-M0 and the current 9.3 codebase I am releasing today.

However one of the changes is fixing 4 files mistakenly marked with a GPL header, and one file has had its licensed clarified as BSD.

For background please review the following email threads:

- http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Mind-your-head-td5061324.html

- http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Sosnoski-license-lt-gt-sos-no-kill-license-td5059331.html

Aside: I have 150 odd jars, and am happy to start an email conversation for each one here as needed :-)

-- 

Jody Garnett

_______________________________________________
Technology-pmc mailing list
Technology-pmc@locationtech.org
https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc