Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [rt-pmc] Fwd: [CQ 4044] org.apache.commons.logging Version: 1.1.1

In our meeting today these were deemed to be "works with" dependencies since even though they may be permanently stored on the build/test server they are neither released nor visible to project consumers.

On 5/3/2010 3:33 PM, Mike Keith wrote:
I would think so.

I found the two categories of dependencies a little sparse. What about dependencies that are not being shipped or put in a repo, but that are downloaded into a local maven repo during unit testing? A "works with" label is clearly closer to the truth than a "pre-req" as far as a consumer runtime environment goes, but on the other hand, the tests require that the dependency be present...

On 5/3/2010 3:09 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
I'm happy to call this a works with. FWIW, the other day I did observe this general class of situation to the IP team and EMO. I've not heard back as yet.

Jeff


On 2010-05-03, at 2:19 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:

Barb asked for us to have the following discussion... I am inclined to
agree I suppose based on that this is a bit different then the typical
virgo 'going into svn for use in release' scenario of the lionshare of
other virgo dependencies...

which all of that is a topic for Wednesday I believe as well, least I
thought it was...

anyway, anyone have any thoughts on this?

cheers,
jesse

--- Comment #6 from Barb Cochrane<barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
2010-05-03 14:14:26 ---
Hey Jesse, Bob,

If this package is not going into the Eclipse repository, and is not being shipped as part of the project, then it sounds like this might be a "workswith" or "exempt pre-req" candidate as defined by Eclipse Guidelines for Third Party
Dependencies.

http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf

There should be a transparent discussion on the PMC mailing list to determine into which category this package falls. I'll remove +1 from the PMC field on this CQ until that happens. Once the determination is made, Jesse can you please update this CQ with the decision, your +1 and a link to the discussion?
We can continue processing the CQ after we see that.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Barb

Auto-Generated Text:  IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.


--
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.
_______________________________________________
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