| Re: [science-pmc] [CQ 18046] Initial Code Contribution |
No, I'm fine with it. -- Torkild Ulvøy Resheim Senior Software Engineer at Itema AS Granåsveien 3, 7069 Trondheim +47 922 43 638 torkild.resheim@xxxxxxxx www.itema.no > 5. nov. 2018 kl. 15:57 skrev Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Sounds good to me. Anyone object to approving this IC? > > Jay > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems to be up to the PMC to decide the purpose of the these reviews. I've been a member of the Tools PMC for many years and they largely use them just as a sanity check as Jay suggests. Any legal issues are going to be picked up during the IP process anyway. I don't recall a request every being rejected. > > This would probably be a good topic for the next PMC meeting, so we could at least get something written down. > > Regards, > Greg > >> On Nov 4, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Erwin, >> >> Good questions. To me, I think it is some amount of all of the above. Certainly the IP check will handle most of the first case, but if we happen to notice it we can save some time. I also agree and assume that it has already been decided because we had an open proposal review process and the project now exists. Aside from that, I think it is some of the formal stuff and just a cursory check with some of the normal CQ questions: Is there anything strange? Does it look like the correct source code is attached? Do we notice any unexpected dependencies sneaking in? Are the authors listed correct? Are the EF naming conventions followed, at least in spirit if not perfectly in form? Etc... >> >> For my part, the source code looks well formed and I'm more concerned about the parts coming out of EAVP. I would prefer that they come out now and go in with the IC, so that's why I brought up the question to Philip in my response to the CQ. >> >> Jay >> >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018, 12:18 Erwin De Ley <erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Not sure what a PMC review of an initial contribution CQ involves? >> >> >> >> I checked SWT chart sources and found missing license headers in examples and ext projects, no author info and old dates in the license headers of the main swtchart project. >> >> Is that something we must look at, to prepare a bit for the IP review? >> >> >> >> Or is it about whether we agree that this belongs in the science toplevel project? I assume that’s already decided ;-) >> >> >> >> Or is it just noting that there are sources available and the CQ issue seems correctly formatted etc, i.e. just formal stuff? >> >> >> >> From: science-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <science-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Greg Watson >> Sent: Friday, 2 November 2018 16:04 >> To: Science PMC communications <science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [science-pmc] [CQ 18046] Initial Code Contribution >> >> >> >> Not from me. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> Any preference on who reviews this? >> >> >> >> Jay >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 6:30 AM <emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18046 >> >> >> Genie Eclipse <genie@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Severity|new |awaiting_pmc >> >> >> >> >> --- Comment #3 from Genie Eclipse <genie@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2018-11-02 06:30:05 --- >> This CQ is currently awaiting PMC Approval. PMC members only, please use the >> PMC_Approved flag on this CQ to indicate your approval (flag set to "+") or >> disapproval (flag set to "-"). >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> science-pmc mailing list >> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> science-pmc mailing list >> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> science-pmc mailing list >> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc >> _______________________________________________ >> science-pmc mailing list >> science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc > > _______________________________________________ > science-pmc mailing list > science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc > > > -- > Jay Jay Billings > Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings > _______________________________________________ > science-pmc mailing list > science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-pmc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP