Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Libraty piggy-back CQs

Hi

Thanks; that's clear but is hardly sensible. I have a handful of PB CQs to raise and I suspect many other projects must do too.

Since we are strongly encouarged to track the latest Orbit version, shouldn't there be an auto-PB CQ for any project that has a PB CQ for an Orbit library?

Currently I see
20 Guava 10.x PB CQs
2 Guava 11.x PB CQs
0 Guava 12.x PB CQs
4 Guava 13.x PB CQs
0 Guava 14.x PB CQs

With M7 changing the preferred Guava release to 12 that makes for 20 out of 20 projects in breach of IP policy.

    Regards

        Ed Willink




On 17/05/2013 19:20, Wayne Beaton wrote:
I believe that the Contribution Questionnaire page in the wiki [1] answers this. If it is unclear, either take a crack at clarifying it yourself or let me know I can take another run at it.

The short version is that you need CQ for any library that project code uses directly. You do not require a CQ for any library that is used indirectly via another Eclipse project. I spelled this out in more detail on the wiki page.

CQs are version-specific. You need a CQ for each version of a library that project code uses.

It doesn't matter where project code comes from. If a tool like Xtext generates project code (i.e. code that goes into your source code repository, or dynamically-generated code that gets distributed in compiled form) that uses a library, this is considered a direct reference.

HTH,

Wayne

[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Contribution_Questionnaire

On 05/17/2013 02:31 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Wayne

Can you clarify the policy on library piggy-back CQs?

For MDT/OCL we initially used Guava indirectly through Xtext and so might not need a PB CQ although we did raise one since Xtext auto-generates source code for us with direct calls to the Injector class. Subsequently we have some manually written code that exploits Guava too.

Our PB CQ has not updated from version 10, although Guava in Orbit is charging along through 11, 12 with 14 on the horizon.

Are we at fault through not raising more PB CQs? Do I misunderstand the policy? Is the policy inappropriate for major evolving libraries?

    Regards

        Ed Willink
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6332 - Release Date: 05/17/13



Back to the top