Dear PMC members,
During the IP review of the code contribution for IAM (
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2723), we have
been prompted
to ask the PMC the appropriate dependency type for maven
archetypes used by
the code. I'm forwarding the whole conversation and copying
Sharon so she's
aware of the PMC decision.
Maven Archetypes are project templates that are downloaded on
demand from
maven repositories. As such, they can have any content and
license and the
full list of available archetypes can not be determined in advance.
A similar thing happens with maven artifacts (archetypes are just
a type of
artifacts). To put it simply, a maven artifact is anything that
can be
downloaded from a maven repository (public or corporate, with any
licensing
terms and any content). Typical artifacts are binary jars, source
code,
javadocs and metadata.
By reading the Eclipse Policy and Procedure for 3rd Party
Dependencies<http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
>,
I think that we don't need to declare a dependency:
*The key issue we need to address is the one where projects are
essentially
bypassing the IP due*
*diligence process by prereq'ing third party software, which is
to be
downloaded and installed separately** **by the user, instead of
redistributing such software in their projects.*
(Emphasis mine)
Since IAM downloads the files on its own, I don't think the
policy rules
applies (the user does not download or install anything).
To me, IAM behavior is no different than P2, Buckminster, WTP
installable
runtimes, Mylyn issue and patch management and many other eclipse
projects
which use available external resources.
In any case, if the policy is to be followed, I think that IAM
would need to
define a "works-with maven artifacts" dependency (if such a generic
statement is valid).
On the same line, IAM is able to download repository indexes from
arbitrary
locations. Should we ask for a "works-with repository indexes"
also?
It can also download archetype lists from any location (like a
wiki page).
Does this require a "works-with artifact lists"?
Thanks!
Abel Muiño
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abel Muiño <amuino@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: CQ2723: q for Eclipse
To: Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Carlos Sanchez <carlossg@xxxxxxxxx>, Barb Cochrane <
barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Everything is clear except for "Point 2 - files are not packaged
with IAM or
in SVN - they are downloaded at Runtime", which I think I didn't
expain
clearly enough.
The user of IAM can describe the artifacts (files) that he will
be using and
it will then ask IAM to download them as needed. Those files are
not
required by IAM and, more importantly, are not known in advance.
Those files are downloaded from locations unknown to us (the user
can point
to several locations, some of the files might be internal to his
organization).
I would say the IAM's situation is not different from P2/Update
Manager or
Buckminster (which can download any kind of file), CVS/SVN
tooling, (which
also can fetch some files in behalf of the user) or maybe the
"downloadable
runtimes" from WTP (which are created by third parties without
knowledge of
the WTP developers).
We can talk this with the PMC, but I'm hoping that it is just my
bad
explanation which caused a misunderstanding, and we can skip IP
review of
every single file that can be downloaded while using IAM (which,
to put it
simply, is an infinite number).
Thanks for your time and good advice!
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Sharon Corbett
<sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Hi Guys:
Regarding Point 2 - files are not packaged with IAM or in SVN -
they are
downloaded at Runtime. This means that your project has a
dependency on
these files. As such, please see the Eclipse Guidelines for
Third Party
Dependencies<http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
>.
You will need to discuss which dependency applies in this
situation with
your PMC via the PMC Tech Mailing List. You will note that
"works with"
dependencies can be approved solely by your PMC. However, "pre-
exempt"
dependencies must be approved by the EMO via a submitted CQ.
Regarding Points 3 and 9 – Even a few lines of code from any
third party
package must be requested via a CQ if they are being distributed
from
Eclipse. You can request a "subset" of files for any component
from Maven
that you require. You do not have to request the entire
component. Please
note in cases where a small amount of third party code is
included in an EPL
File, we would expect to see a reference to the third party
license and
identification of third party package below the EPL header. In
the case
where third party files are modified and distributed by Eclipse,
a CQ again
is required and the modified files would be solely under the
third party
license not the EPL.
Regarding the last point of delaying the submission of CQs for
Maven
components (29 source/binary dependencies), we typically do not
review
alpha or beta code unless there are extenuating circumstances
involved which
are dealt with on a case by case basis. However, if any of the
components
are in RC stages, we would recommend that you enter the CQs now
as the
NonEpl due diligence queue is quite long. For third party code
where a full
release is imminent, you can enter the CQ now with the latest
version and
update the CQ when the code is fully released as long as the CQ
has not yet
been reviewed – this will ensure you are in the queue.
Regarding the advice concerning once a version of a component
has been
approved; new versions are easier to process. Yes, this is
mostly true
depending on the length of time and the amount of changes in the
approved
code base versus the new code. If both of these are minimal we
perform a
"diff" scan which typically takes less time but again keep in
mind the
NonEPL queue is long.
I hope this helps. I'm copying my colleague, Barb Cochrane, on
this email
as Barb handles most of the third party reviews.
Regards,
Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Content-filter at foundation.eclipse.org [mailto:
virusalert@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abel Muiño Vizcaino
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:51 PM
To: Sharon Corbett
Cc: Abel Muiño Vizcaino; Carlos Sanchez
Subject: CQ2723: q for Eclipse
Hi Sharon,
I have some questions that I think would be better addressed
outside
of the CQ.
Point 2: I'm not sure we need a CQ for this. The files are not
packaged with IAM or in svn. They are downloaded as needed at
runtime.
Points 3 and 9 are not covered by another CQ. Since we only use
a few
lines of code, I'm wondering if we need to file a CQ for the whole
Maven component (I guess that we can file a CQ for the XSD files
alone, not so sure about java files).
Slightly related to this is that we've been delaying the
submission of
CQs for maven components (29 source/binary dependencies), since
many
of them have not made an official release yet and we might need to
update them very often. We currently host them outside of eclipse.
Our mentors told us that once a version of a component has been
approved, new versions are easier to process. If that's the
case, we
can submit the current (unreleased) versions of the components for
review and re-submit released versions later.
Is that right? can we submit a zip of code for an unreleased
version
of the maven components and have it approved?
Thanks!
Abel
- -- Abel Muiño - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com/
- -- Abel Muiño - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
