| Re: [tools-pmc] Titan's list of "works with" exceptions to full IP review |
|
Hi David,
OK , let me try to revisit these issues, but first some clarifications might be needed: Although I understand your separation below into “git repository” and “build machine”, our practice is that both the source code for the binary to be produced
and all the code needed to build and test it resides in git , and in the same repository, but in different directories ; this permits us to develop the code itself and tests in parallel ; and we would prefer if possible to keep the same code structure in
the final git repository. Of course, your separation makes sense from IP point of view as this is the criteria of which part of the code makes it into the final binaries. And yes, as you mentioned, understanding and clarifying the fine division between e.g. “works with” and exempt prerequisite” dependencies is not easy, especially
as there seems to be no consensus among the group itself taking decisions. But back to your issues: 1.
And then beyond that, it seemed like there were a few requests for which I said there was no good reason not to have full review (which I mentioned in my one by one
reviews) ... and, granted, I was the only one who commented .... but ... one comment is more than zero, and is all "we" have to go on. Based on your observations, I have submitted the source code for a number of dependencies to be reviewed and to be included eventually in Orbit. 8771 ant-contrib 1.0b2-as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary source code submitted for
IP review 8776 antlr 4.1.3 -as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary source code submitted
for IP review 8777 jung2 2.0.1 - as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary source code submitted
for IP review 8778 JExcel 2.6.12 -as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary source code submitted
for IP review 8779 commons-collections 4.01- as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary source code submitted for IP review
2.
I am waiting for is clarification on which are literally only required during
build and test time Again, bison and flex are used indirectly, to generate the appropriate syntaxes , which then will be included in the final compilation 8767 bison 3.0.2 - as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary build dependency only (source generated by bison
to be compiled into the project) 8768 flex 2.5.39- as "works with" exception to full IP review unmodified binary build dependency only (source generated by flex
to be compiled into the project) Of the above, ant-contrib is used only during building the Java plug-ins. 3.
I know for "Cygwin" Doug and myself had reservations about it .. The Titan binary can be compiled against a number of platforms, Solaris, Linux, and Cygwin among others. It appears that there are users who prefer to work
with Cygwin and we don’t want to remove this possibility. On the other hand we don’t intend to distribute
any part of Cygwin, nor in source , neither in binary form: if the user prefers Cygwin, he/she will have to install it and compile Titan on it. In our interpretation
the quoted exception should cover this by far and we heard no counterarguments only a generic and vague fear of Cygwin tainting the code. For libxml2, libpcap, sqlite I believe we have clarified that these are generic Linux libraries present in mainstream Linux distributions; I have even been
rebuked for submitting them as dependencies. If you consider them as superfluous , please let me know. I agree this project reached an impasse, not in the least due to disagreements among you guys; please help us moving it forward; we rely on your expertise and
professionalism. If 2016 is the date targeted, than maybe we should consider taking this project elsewhere. There are a number of potential users awaiting the code and asking
us daily what’s going on. Thank you and best regards Elemer From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David M Williams To answer the dozen of posts, with 1, I'll say what I am waiting for is clarification on which are literally only required during build and test time, combined with an explicit
agreement from project these will exist only on build machine, not in a Git repository ... seemed to be some confusion (in my mind) on "what was what" and "what the project understood" about "works with" status. When I requested something similar, it was "pooh-pooh'd
by Wayne" as "taking more work" ... and so there it sits ... in impasse. I think it's hard for the project to "know what to do" when "the PMC and EMO disagree" ... and if the EMO wants to "take over" ... well ... I don't really know what to say about that.
|