Re: [cdt-dev] Proper handling of IP

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quick not to confirm the contribution that came a little late
has passed IP review and was approved.

You gotta love the eclipse.org folks!

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
> >