Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [rt-pmc] Google API Approval

I must have missed some discussion or gotten confused as I did not recall a conclusion on the type of dependency.  
Thanks for the reiteration.

Jeff



On 2010-02-02, at 4:05 PM, Thomas Watson wrote:

I also had a similar comment on the previous thread.

+1 to works with relationship in this case.

Tom



<graycol.gif>Jesse McConnell ---02/02/2010 03:55:57 PM---this is outside of the previous thread we had on this topic? if not

<ecblank.gif>
From:
<ecblank.gif>
Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>
<ecblank.gif>
To:
<ecblank.gif>
Runtime Project PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<ecblank.gif>
Date:
<ecblank.gif>
02/02/2010 03:55 PM
<ecblank.gif>
Subject:
<ecblank.gif>
Re: [rt-pmc] Google API Approval





this is outside of the previous thread we had on this topic?  if not
then my comments there stand for me in that it seems a works with
relationship to me and I support a CQ to that effect

cheers,
jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx



On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 15:52, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Other PMCers should comment (if they are so inclined) on the "work with" characterization... It is not simply my decision. Just my opinion.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On 2010-02-02, at 3:08 PM, Austin Riddle wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Thanks for the insight and explanation.
>> I have just opened CQ3765 regarding the works-with dependency.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jeff McAffer wrote:
>>> You need a CQ for everything. In this case the PMC is involved at two points. first we help determine if it is a works with or pre-req dependency. Then someone from the PMC approves the CQ requesting the use of the lib as a works with or pre-req dependency as determined in the first step.
>>>
>>> The first step should be somewhat of a "group" decision. It doesn't have to be an official vote etc but simply taking the first +1 seems incomplete.  Not to make it complicated but as we have seen, the dependency determination is open to different opinions. The second approval requires only one PMC member to +1 the CQ.
>>>
>>> Austin, you will need to state what kind of dependency you are requesting and why it is that kind of dependency.
>>>
>>> In the interest of expediting this particular approval, from a RAP point of view I think this is a works with dependency.  RAP works just fine without this. A particular part of RAP needs the lib but people can use RAP very effectively without that part.
>>>
>>> Note also that if there is part of this code (e.g., the calling side) that you are planning to actually ship from Eclipse.org then I think you will need second CQ for that part as it would would not be a dependency so much as a contribution.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010-02-02, at 1:40 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> AFAIK the part of the CQ process workflow where it needs a +1 from PMC
>>>> member is the only specific blocking point for something like this
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> jesse
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> jesse mcconnell
>>>> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 13:35, Austin Riddle <austin.riddle@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to be a bother, but could anyone tell me what the next step for
>>>>> approving the Google API dependency is?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am expecting the CQ to be approved shortly for the contribution.  Does
>>>>> there need to be a separate CQ opened for the Google dependency?
>>>>> Or is it just a matter of obtaining a +1 from the mailing list?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Austin Riddle
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>> Computing and Information Technology Division
>>>>> Texas Center for Applied Technology
>>>>> Texas Engineering Experiment Station
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Austin Riddle
>> Software Engineer
>> Computing and Information Technology Division
>> Texas Center for Applied Technology
>> Texas Engineering Experiment Station
>> Ph. 979-458-7680
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rt-pmc mailing list
>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc


_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc


Back to the top