|
Right that's what I thought.
I think we are mostly all set here.
Torkild approved the CQs.
Erwin had uploaded the source files, but I missed them.
We will attempt to get a Type B approval for these modules. The
initial CQs were Type B, the second CQs were Type A.
However, I'm still a little unclear as to whether I can approve
other people's CQs or if I'm a member of the PMC. If I'm not a
member of the PMC, I don't have a strong desire to become one. :-)
_Christopher
On 8/19/19 10:13 AM, Jay Jay Billings
wrote:
Just wanted to pipe up here: You should not approve your
own code, even if only as a courtesy.
Jay
I've probably asked this before, but am I a PMC voting
member? I don't recall if I was elected. Details about
PMCs are at https://wiki.eclipse.org/PMC
If I'm a member, then I could approve these. However, as
this is my code, I'm not sure if *should* approve it.
Perhaps someone else should approve these?
The summary is that these four CQs are to cover support
for Apache Karaf ("a modular
open source OSGi (Release 6) runtime environment"), memory
leaks and support for more recent versions of the JDK, so
approval by the PMC should be a snap.
Erwin, could you upload the sources so that I can do a
more complete analysis of the changes between the
previously CQ'd version and the approved version. I've
previously done analyses of the changes, but I should take
a pass at what is actually being submitted.
The differences between the code that previously passed
CQ and the new code are fairly small, though there are
annoying white space changes because of changes to how
Eclipse indents and cleans code.
I would like to see the modules have Type B content, but
I'm not sure if we can do it because getting approval of
all the authors could be time consuming.
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_IP_Policy.pdf
says:
B.In the
Case of Content that is requested by one or more
projects to be made available
as Non-Eclipse
Content:
The
Project Lead(s) for each Eclipse Project shall document
the level of review required for its
Non-Eclipse
Content as “Type A” or “Type B” as defined
below. The EMO, working
with the applicable PMC(s), Project Lead(s) and
Committer(s), shall document, and where
required approve the use of Content as Non-Eclipse
Content by contacting the Committer(s)
seeking to Submit such Content, and collect, confirm, and
maintain a record of
the following:
For
“Type A” Projects:(1)It will be
the responsibility of the Eclipse Project to run and
analyze the results of a scan
tool provided by the EMO, using parameters provided by
the EMO, to obtain the
terms and conditions
under which such Content would be distributed by the
Eclipse Foundation, and ensure that such terms are
consistent with the Project Licenses.
The Eclipse Project will certify that the terms and
conditions of its Non-EclipseContent
conform to thethen-current
licensing guidelines as provided by the EMO.
No further approvals will be required from the EMO prior
to the Eclipse
Project placing the Non-Eclipse
Content into the Repository.
For “Type B” Projects:In
addition to the steps described abovefor Type A
Projects, the EMO will:
(2)Run and
analyze the results of a scan tool provided by the
EMO, using parameters provided
by the EMO, to help confirm the provenance of the
Content.
(3)Confirm
the provenance of the Content by asking the
redistributors(s),maintainers(s),
and/or the original author(s) of the Content questions
such as:
i.What is
your process to obtain the necessary rights to enable
you to redistribute
the author(s)’ work?
ii.Did you
agree to your code being distributed, under the
applicable license agreement(s)?
iii.Did you
write the code in question?
iv.Does
anyone else have rights to the code in question?
The above are examples to illustrate the types of
questions asked to gain comfort that the
Eclipse Foundation can distribute such Content.
Committers on
Type B Projects
may not place Non-Eclipse
Content into the Repository without the approval
of the EMO.
Should we go with Type A?
_Christopher
For the
Triquetrum 0.3.0 release, we want to integrate the
latest updates in Ptolemy II bundles, needed to
prepare for supporting modern JDK versions.
They also
contain a limited set of improvements/fixes related
to memory management.
We've had Type A
CQs in the past for these bundles, but given that we
consider 0.3.0 most probably as the final release
before considering retiring Triquetrum, I feel a
Type B check is best here.
CQs are
20675-20678.
Could the PMC
review and approve these CQ submissions so they can
go for the IP checks in time for the science
release?
thanks
erwin
_______________________________________________
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
|
