[science-pmc] FW: Open Triquetrum CQs for finalizing release preparation

[Erwin De Ley <erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Science PMC & Eclipse EMO,

 

I would like your advice / info from previous experience if possible, on CQ/IP procedures for an optional dependency for Triquetrum

 

The CQ 14216 mentioned below is about a bundle coming from the Ptolemy repo, to be included with the Triquetrum release package.

It seems my understanding of works-with is not OK with the Eclipse rules. Cfr remarks from Sharon in the CQ and below.

 

Extra context :

• Contrary to other Ptolemy bundles this is not about Java classes but about editor palette configuration files and icon files, that add (many) extra palette entries next to the few that are defined in Triquetrum’s basic palette itself.
• After a remark from Jonah on a previous CQ, I would like to get the CQ approved for the current Ptolemy 11.1 and future versions in one go.
• Technically it’s an optional dependency. I.e. Triquetrum works fine without it, it’s only the editor palette that would be almost empty then.
  Models using the related actor implementation classes would execute fine (the related actor classes themselves are part of another approved mandatory dependency CQ)
• We would like to provide it in the release package though, to make life easier for the users than if they would need to install it from a Ptolemy update site themselves.
  (the Ptolemy community is not necessarily experienced with Eclipse install/update procedures)

 

From an Eclipse doc at http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf this would seem to correspond to being a “works-with” dependency :

“The Eclipse software does not require the third party software to be present.  If the third party software happens to be present, the Eclipse software may call or invoke it.   ”

 

This does not state specifically that it can or can not be part of the download package?

I don’t understand how this relates to Type A or Type B, as that was about checking licenses only or also the provenance of file contents if I understand correctly?

 

In short I guess I fail to understand what is the real assumed nature of a works-with dependency.

If it can not be delivered with an Eclipse-approved download, I would think we don’t need any kind of CQ anyway for such a thing?

 

What could be a good way forward (to try to get this resolved in time for the Science release)?

• To adapt to a normal fully-checked CQ (Type B?), that is not a works-with, and this probably implies that we need new CQs for each desired palette modification coming from Ptolemy?
• … other ideas?

 

Thanks

Erwin

 

 

From: Sharon Corbett [mailto:sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Erwin De Ley <erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Open Triquetrum CQs for finalizing release preparation for Science 2017 Release & remaining question about IP log contents

 

Hi Erwin:

 

As you know, review findings are unknown until we can complete the review.  I had thought CQs outstanding were to be Type A.  Of course, Workswith do not fall into that category nor does project code.   

 

As the outstanding CQs cannot be Type A, the timeline is extremely tight.  That said, we will do our best early next week to see if we can complete the outstanding requirements.

 

See responses to direct questions below…

 

Thanks,
Sharon

 

From: Erwin De Ley [mailto:erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: September-22-17 8:55 AM
To: Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>; emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Open Triquetrum CQs for finalizing release preparation for Science 2017 Release & remaining question about IP log contents

 

Dear Eclipse IP team, Sharon,

 

Today is the day we need to finalize release preparations and trigger the review process for the IP log etc for the science projects that participate in the Science 2017 release (October 10^th).

 

There are 2 open CQs for Triquetrum for which I would like to ask for some feedback :

 

https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14216 : I posted comments on the last change from your side. Can you review and let me know how this should progress?

 

Workswith Requests must be discussed and voted on by PMC.  PMC may place their vote via comment to the CQ.  The vote needs to remain open for 5 business days or until all PMC Vote.  You need to engage your PMC accordingly.  IP team cannot process.

That said, if the content will be included in a download or checked into the repo, it cannot be considered a Workswith.

 

https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14227 : a final CQ about our new SPLASH image which we would like to use with the released version. Can this still be validated in time for the release?

 

We are currently focused on Texlipse Initial’s completion.

 

I would prepare all release info by the end of the day (Europe time zone) and trigger the IP log review then.

Related to the IP log, I sent a msg a while ago (cfr attachment) about incorrect contents in the generated log.

 

You can submit the log and indicate any pending CQs that are required in the log.   Regarding the IP Log containing content in the contributor section that should not be included, I’ll forward your email to EMO for assistance.

 

Do we need to care about that or do we just go ahead with that  as-is?

 

Many thanks, as always, for your support!

 

Cheers

erwin