[modeling-pmc] [CQ 2342] QVT Abstract syntax support

[emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx]

http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2342





--- Comment #16 from Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-07-14 16:37:48 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> #1
> 
> Confirm removal (to separate CQ).
> 
> I've heard back from Sreedhar Reddy twice. He is very happy to apply a
> copyright TCS EPL license header. He confirms that all code was written by TCS.
> He wants to know how Eclipse IP will contact him for confirmation.

Actually the committer entering the TCS CQ should contact Sreedhar and arrange
for TCS to sign the Eclipse Employer Consent Form
(http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committer_process/employer_consent.pdf) which
will be required for that CQ.   Since you have already communicated with
Sreedhar, by all means feel free to forward his email communication to me or
provide him with my email address...


> 
> #2
> 
> Since this is a review for contribution rather than release, can't the
> about.html's be a requirement for the release, rather than checkintocvs? Not
> having a CVS makes it increasingly difficult to maintain bug fixes.

This is a review for movement of code.  A move is handled similarly to a
graduation.  Getting the About Files done correctly now will be appreciated by
M2M.  
> 
> #3
> 
> "Let's do that now."
> 
> I trust that "us" is the Eclipse IP team. It seems you can just raise the three
> OMG CQs and put them through your process to ensure that all your checkboxes
> are well checked. Perhaps you need a UML2 one and XSD and XML and other W3C
> ones too. Have WST done a CQ for every RFC?! 

We are not committers and as such we (IP Team) cannot enter CQs.
> 


-- 
Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.