Ed,
I've been staring at a lot of IP Logs over the past few weeks, so
please forgive me for not remembering the specific catalyst of
this discussion. AFAIK, I never told anybody that they needed to
create a bajillion piggyback CQs. Feel free to remind me.
As I recall, I did notice that the QVT-OCL project was actively
distributing Guava 15 and recommend that they create just one CQ
for that specific version.
Wayne
On 02/06/16 03:25 AM, Ed Merks wrote:
Wayne,
As you can see below, this is all very academic, and I don't care
to pursue an academic exercise. Please reduce the number of
required CQs to just the version on the train so that the view
passes and is complete.
Regards,
Ed
On 02.06.2016 09:13, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Ed
I don't think that you should need to approve any of the extra
Guava piggy back CQs.
Each has a primary CQ satisfying the Eclipse requirement for IP
diligence.
OCL and QVTd have Guava 10 PiggyBack CQs satisfying the
requirement for per-project Orbit traceability.
The additional pig-sty of CGs seems to be a complete nonsense.
It is required because the IP policy fails to accommodate the
reality of rapid version change by an Orbit component.
If the pig-sty is required, as indicated by Sharon, then the CQs
should be auto-approved (albeit manually) by the IP team. Better
the IP team should recognize that they are pointless and
auto-generate the pig-sty for all projects. Or perhaps Guava
new-version primary CQs should be designated as NV CQs of the
original version so that a PB CQ of a particular version
inherits the full chain of NV CQs.
At the moment it seems that the IP team is creating a dilemma.
If I do nothing ...
QVTd will fail its release review shortly before the
Simulataneous release. As a +3 incubation project, exclusion of
QVTd will not affect anyone, but a post RC5 respin will be
required delaying the Neon release.
OCL will similarly fail and a few projects will have to rework
post RC5 to ensure that OCL is a truly optional dependency. A
few projects will be unable to rework in the timescale and will
have to follow OCL out of the train. An unrealistic disruption
for a purely academic review failure.
Alternatively I withdraw the CQs and knowingly violate the
clearly expressed requirement for these CQs. If I update the
review documentation to indicate that I know of this academic IP
violation, the reviews should fail.
Without the pig-sty of CQs, it seems that either I must provide
knowingly false review documentation, or the IP team must revise
the IP policy for Guava.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 02/06/2016 07:00, Ed Merks wrote:
Wayne,
While I see the technical point Ed Willink is making about
which version of Guava he should PB CQ, given that ranges (or
the unbounded range) are involved in the requirement and at
install/runtime could be installed/wired with any version, I
feel it's splitting hairs in a way that creates extra work for
everyone involved to open a PB CQ for every version of Guava
known to mankind. The 15.0 version is the one on the Neon
train (and is approved), and I approved the 19.0 (latest)
version. I don't see all other modeling projects creating a
flood of PB CQs in these cases, nor to I want to see that. It
seems superfluous, so I'll draw the line with this workflow
based on the expectation that each project will file a single
PB CQ a given library they are using for their release.
Technically, looking at the OCL repo, they are not actually
redistributing Guava in the repository, but the project is on
the train, so it will generally install with Guava 15.0.0.
Approving that CQ is sufficient from my point of view.
Regards,
Ed
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7598 / Virus Database: 4591/12342 - Release
Date: 06/01/16
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|