| Re: [rt-pmc] Question regarding third party libraries for Galileo |
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:
Question regarding third party libraries for Galileo 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