[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Proper handling of IP

Marc,

We certainly appreciate the kind words. Thanks very much.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Khouzam [mailto:marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: March-02-12 2:08 PM
> To: 'CDT General developers list.'
> Cc: 'emo@xxxxxxxxxxx'; 'emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx';
> 'mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Proper handling of IP
> 
> 
> 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
> > >