Fine for me.
erwin
From: science-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <science-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Jay Jay Billings
Sent: Monday, 5 November 2018 15:57
To: Science PMC communications <science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [science-pmc] [CQ 18046] Initial Code Contribution
Sounds good to me. Anyone object to approving this IC?
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.
Greg
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.
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?
Not from me.
_______________________________________________
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
|
