Community
Participate
Working Groups
I've scheduled this for September 20. There are a few things that I need you do to before we can declare success. See below. Is any of the moved content covered by a CQ or make use of third party content? i.e. do we have to move any CQs? Please submit the IP Log for EMF Compare. There is an option on the submission page to indicate that it is not for a release. Select that. Please also forward the link to the review document (see the URL field) for approval by the PMC.
(In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #0) > > Is any of the moved content covered by a CQ or make use of third party > content? i.e. do we have to move any CQs? > The moved content uses Guava 21 and Apache Log4j 1.2.15. For both third party libraries, an approved CQ already exists in EMF Compare. Please note that those two libraries are also used in parts of EMF Compare that will not be moved. Thus, these dependencies stay active in EMF Compare also after the restructuring. Aside from these, I'm not aware of any other CQs that would have to be moved.
I believe papyrus already has an approved CQ for Guava 21. Would need to confirm but it's likely they also have an approved for Apache Log4J. IPLog submitted as https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14221 What do you mean by review document?
We have not yet received PMC approval. Please request it as soon as possible.
I still have no idea what I am to submit to the PMC for approval. This is not a release, so it's not a release review approval... Wayne did mention a review document in the description of this bug, but didn't answer my question about what document it would be in comment 2. I'd assume what I need is a restructuring review but the wiki page (https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Restructuring_Reviews) is getting pretty old, not to mention we're not creating a "new" project but transfering code to another, existing one. The new projects page (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.emfcompare) doesn't seem to provide any link to create such a review either. As mentionned by mail, we are completely in the dark as to what kind of paperwork we have to fill on this.
Okay, I just realized the "URL field" wayne mentionned wasn't about the IP log or anything but this very bug... I'll forward this to the pmc.
The code that is to be moved uses third-party libraries provided by Orbit: - Guava 21 (approved both for EMF Compare (CQ 13121) and Papyrus (CQ 13120)) - Apache Log4J 1.2.15 (EMF Compare CQ 14277, no related CQ for Papyrus) I realized while looking for the CQ that it was never approved for EMF Compare so I created the piggy-back CQ. The papyrus team will also need to create a CQ for that if they plan to keep log4j for the logging. Philip, can you confirm the intent on that?
(In reply to Laurent Goubet from comment #6) > The code that is to be moved uses third-party libraries provided by Orbit: > > - Guava 21 (approved both for EMF Compare (CQ 13121) and Papyrus (CQ 13120)) > - Apache Log4J 1.2.15 (EMF Compare CQ 14277, no related CQ for Papyrus) > > I realized while looking for the CQ that it was never approved for EMF > Compare so I created the piggy-back CQ. The papyrus team will also need to > create a CQ for that if they plan to keep log4j for the logging. Philip, can > you confirm the intent on that? Yes, I would like to keep it, if possible. If it adds a lot of overhead in this process, however, I can also remove the dependency.
I declare this review successful!
