Re: [cdt-dev] Proper handling of IP

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I couldn't have asked for a more clear answer from
a better person :)

I'll open the CQ as soon as the patch is ready to
be committed and add some explanatory text (and
the answer to the three questions).

Thanks!
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:41 AM
> To: 'CDT General developers list.'
> Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx; emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proper handling of IP
> 
> Marc,
> 
> I agree with Jeff. File the CQ and we'll figure something 
> out. There's no
> point in adding extra work to either you or the contributor 
> for a 445 line
> patch.
> 
> You could help the IP team out by making sure that you've 
> personally read
> the code and are happy that there's nothing funky-looking in 
> there. And say
> so on the CQ :)
> 
> You also need to ask the contributor the famous "three 
> questions" to get
> that documented on the bug.
> 
> HTH
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Jeffrey Overbey
> > Sent: February-16-12 11:30 AM
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proper handling of IP
> > 
> > > The patch is now more than 250 lines (445) but the CQ deadline
> > > ...
> > > Since the patch addresses multiple fixes, would it be ok to
> > > split the solution into multiple bugs and multiple 
> smaller patches?
> > 
> > Doug can say for sure (or could check with the IP team), 
> but you might
> > be able to commit the patch as-is.  The point of the CQ 
> process is to
> > mitigate risk; "250 lines" was chosen somewhat arbitrarily as the
> > definition of a "small" contribution which has very little 
> risk.  This
> > patch isn't THAT much over the limit, and many of his 445 lines are
> > comments or import statements anyway, so it would probably 
> get triaged
> > if you filed a CQ.  Splitting it into multiple patches would waste
> > time and wouldn't mitigate any additional risk... and it's 
> definitely
> > a "small" contribution with virtually no IP risk anyway (right?).
> > 
> > Jeff
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>