Re: [Technology-pmc] GeoTools 9.0-M0 dependency

[Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@xxxxxxxxx>]

Quick comments inline - and thanks for the clarification.

-- 

Jody Garnett

On Saturday, 22 June 2013 at 2:47 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

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).

I got a long list of prerequisite dependencies, some of which warrant discussion. In this case, the license is LGPL but we had previously advised the eclipse board when forming LocationTech.

So for GeoTools are we marking it "exempt" ? 

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.

I would like that (in the interest of efficiency). I also would not mind an email sent to technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in case there were any questions.

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.

Agreed, it is versioned and deployed in a single release script.  I note that I did not submit *all* of GeoTools at this time, only the parts used by uDig.

Should we be expecting a release version soon?

Five more released have been made since 9.0-M0. Indeed I am releasing 9.3 this weekend. The stable GeoTools series has adopted monthly releases (in order to support the consulting companies making their living on downstream projects). We find this encourages organisations to contribute changes if they have a regular "time-boxed" release cycle with respect to their fix appearing in a public release.

If yes, then you should coordinate with the IP Team; there may be something that they can do to lessen your collective burdens.

I think this was covered in conversation with Sharon, she is able to "do a diff" when evaluating subsequent versions and minimise her review burden.

Idea: If there was a way to "attach" a dependency as a link to a maven repository it would indeed save time. Perhaps I can make a text file of links and upload that next time. Still the automatic tool enjoyed reviewing the jars and verifying there were no nested zip files. 

Also, if we're treating this as a single library, you can contribute a single code ZIP if that's easier (i.e. you don't need to provide source code in a manner that reflects the distribution JARs).

The size of the project was way past the limit IPZilla will accept, so the series of smaller src jars was the only option.