I would have suggested #2 but either ways seems fine. An interesting
topic is whether, in this example, the SMILA team has to file an
additional CQ to nor use the stuff that gets put in Orbit... Will have
to talk about this with the IP team.
Jeff
Oliver Wolf wrote:
Hi *@PMC,
I’ve filed a bunch of CQs for third party libraries that rt.swordfish
will require directly or indirectly for the Galileo release.
Some of them are piggybacking on existing CQs filed by other projects
that have been approved previously. Consequently, PMC approval for my
CQs was not granted because of the Galileo requirement that all
libraries shared between projects must be consumed from Orbit (which
makes perfect sense). I’ve already asked to be nominated as a committer
on Orbit and the election is underway. So far, so good.
What’s puzzling me, though, is how to correctly proceed from here.
Let’s take CQ3015 as a random example. It’s a CQ for xmlschema-1.4.2
which piggybacks on CQ2756 originally filed by rt.smila. As far as I
understand, there are two potential routes to go down:
- Get PMC approval for CQ3015 and have it
approved as reuse by the IP team, then file an ATO (add to orbit CQ)
that piggybacks on CQ3015, get approval and commit to Orbit.
- File an ATO that piggybacks on CQ2756, get
approval, commit to Orbit. Change CQ3015 to piggyback on the ATO and
get approval to consume from Orbit.
What is the correct/common/best way to proceed? And what happens in the
(hopefully theoretical) case that rt.smila doesn’t agree to consume
from Orbit?
Cheers,
Oliver
--
Oliver Wolf
SOPERA GmbH
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
|