|
There's various degrees of making sense. Does Xtext make sense without ANTLR. Barely. Is User Experience hurt by the hoops they have to go through to get ANTLR installed, definitely. Was ANTLR a "works with" for Xtext?
"Right thing to do" is a good starting point.
The IP Team, however, depends on the PMC to make a call with regard to whether or not something meets the definition of "works with". I think that this is a technical call.
Does, for example, the project software make sense if the dependency is absent?
There's more to the definition of "works with", but I think that's all we're concerned about with this batch.
Wayne
On 07/10/14 11:33 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
I'm OK with the technical sense part. But I don't feel qualified to prescreen requests for any IP rules. Especially since I get confused by what's allowed in my commercial product versus what's allowed at Eclipse. So I'll stick to the technical part and
for Titan, all these requests make technical/architectural sense that they're the right thing to do. These are all common libraries that a commercial product on would depend on and redistribute if necessary.
Well... we do have a lot of documentation...
Grouping is more of a convenience. It's not required, but--rather--an attempt to make it easy to identify a large number of build and test dependencies without having to create a whole bunch of CQs.
There's no reason to consolidate now. In fact, consolidating will just make more work for everybody.
This is an example of something that we need to do a better job of disseminating to save everybody some time and energy. It's on my list (but has been for a while, unfortunately).
Frankly, it's the PMC's job to "pre-screen" CQs for the IP Team. In the case of a works-with or exempt pre-req designation, the IP Team depends on the PMC to make sure that the request makes technical sense and to best of the PMC's ability determine that it
fits the definition.
HTH,
Wayne
On 07/10/14 02:30 PM, David M Williams wrote:
Thanks Wayne, not sure I was aware of that document ... or ... I was aware but have forgotten.
The part of that document that I like best is "Test and build dependencies may be grouped together in a single
contribution questionnaire (CQ) " :)
Perhaps the IP Team can help "pre-screen" CQs and direct projects to do that grouping, if in fact the project agrees the rest of the conditions are met (i.e. not distributed, not in scm, open source only, on build machine only, etc.). It would have made it
easier in this case to know what to review real carefully ... and which were almost automatically ok (I guess the PMC then just has to sanity check, that it is "open source", etc. -- I don't know, there might be other cases of "incompatible licenses" ... but,
don't think that is PMC's responsibility to catch).
Elemér, I don't mean to cause you even more work than you've done already ... which, is a lot! But, it might help to have your "build and test only, not distributed" items "grouped" in one CQ, if you think it'd help you (and us) keep track of "current status".
Thanks again,
From: Wayne Beaton
<wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date: 10/07/2014 02:11 PM
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 8768] flex 2.5.39- as "works with" exception to full IP review
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
FYI,
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Re sources/IP/Test_and_Build_Dependencies
TL;DR: Build and test dependencies can be classified as "works with"
Wayne
On 07/10/14 12:12 AM, David M Williams wrote:
Same as Bison, if this is a development time dependency only, not checked into Git, and not distributed, then sounds ok as "works with", to me.
(I'm not even sure "development time only" dependencies are technically "works with", or ... if there is some better classification ... but, I believe as long as not put in Git repo, and not distributed with project, that there are not many limits on "development
time only" tools.)
From: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date: 10/03/2014 03:41 PM
Subject: [tools-pmc] [CQ 8768] flex 2.5.39- as "works with" exception to full IP review
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse. org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8768
Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
Severity|new |awaiting_pmc
--- Comment #3 from Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2014-10-03 15:41:01 ---
Auto-Generated Text: IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.
--
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.
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse .org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse .org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
 _______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinf o/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
 |
