[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Who Needs Piggyback CQs?
|
Ed,
> Am 01.04.2015 um 07:36 schrieb Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>:
> [...] But it was pointed out that PB CQs are an implementation detail of the IP policy, not hard coded in the policy itself, so that detail could be changed without changing the policy itself.
Well, that changes things/options a lot. :)
>> Keep in mind that the IP process applies to *all* forges not just www.eclipse.org projects.
> Definitely, e.g., Xtext move the code base to github.
It's not so much about projects moving to GitHub. I was thinking about the LocationTechs and other working groups. There are so many new projects and it takes weeks to get their code into a repo and building. Yet, very few of them know about the IP process, many don't care.
> [...] In any case, I know I personally would not be in favor of two classes of projects, i.e., IP reviewed ones and non-IP approved projects. To me it's a formula for yet more complexity and confusion. Clearly an IP reviewed project can't use the results of a non-IP approved code base, so this would induce a schism, and water down the IP clean brand that is Eclipse.
It's also a formula to more flexibility and freedom. The complexity and confusion is (IMO) manageable similar to how you'd like to manage the PBs - reporting and automation. Sure, there will be different issues in either world. But an "opt-in" model for projects has potential for reducing the IP team work load. Thus, I think it's worth a discussion.
-Gunnar
