| Re: [orbit-dev] ASM 5.2 |
> In https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12453#c20 with Sharon
> Corbett we agreed to do a single CQ for ASM library in future, however
> unclear if single ATO (
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12454 ) is enough to merge
> https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/87819/ now. WDYT?
Technically the ATO CQ should always reference the CQ where the content was
approved, and since the contribution was made over multiple CQs, there would
need to be multiple ATO CQs. I think there might be some confusion if other
projects were to see just one ATO CQ (12454) for ASM 5.2 and none for the
other ASM bundles when trying to declare their intent to use any of the
ASM 5.2 bundles in Orbit.
If the legal team is fine with just one ATO CQ, then that's fine, but for
what it's worth, the ATO CQs are usually approved rather quickly.
Cheers,
--
Roland Grunberg
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev