Re: [orbit-dev] Orbit and bundles under "parallel IP for mature projects

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to give the official followup on this thread. 

We do need to list on web page that full approval is pending on a 
per-bundle basis. 
(My layman's explanation is the legal staff already feels they are on thin 
ice and 
have already compromised beyond their comfort zone by allowing it at all, 
and they are, rightfully, 
concerned about people spreading the bundles around which has a chance of 
later being disapproved and yanked). 

I have re-opened our bug 241243 to improve automating this in the future, 
which could also cover web page improvements. 
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=241243

But in the mean time, I think Martin's solution is best for now, which 
I'll repeat here: 

<quote>
What does work nicely today, is the IP Log information (based on my edits 
to the IP Log XML File):
   (1) set the status to "in-progress" and
   (2) add a note clarifying the status.
This does nicely display when diving into the IP Logs from the download 
page (click on com.jcraft.jsch which is the 4th bundle from here):
   
http://download.eclipse.org/tools/orbit/downloads/drops/S20090307012903/iplog-S20090307012903.html
and you see this:
 
Version: 0.1.41 (web) (cvs) status:red
License: JCraft License (modified BSD-style) (CQ 3040)
Contact: Martin Oberhuber
Note: Committed under the terms of Parallel IP for Mature Projects. Only 
preliminary IP review based on an incremental diff has been performed. 
Full approval for use within Eclipse is stll pending.
</quote>

Non-compliance might cause the bundle to get yanked unexpectedly from CVS, 
so please mark accurately (and remember to update the iplog once fully 
approved). 

Thank you, 





From:
Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
03/12/2009 10:11 AM
Subject:
Re: [orbit-dev] Orbit and bundles under "parallel       IP      for mature 
projects"
Sent by:
orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



David M Williams schrieb:
> We'll see what they say. (If they insist, I'd prefer some automated CQ
> query, so we don't have to manually update and re-generate our files
> when the state of CQ's change).

+1. For now I'll use Martins suggestion and use the "in-progress" status.

-Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://wagenknecht.org/

[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] 
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev