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