On 3/8/12 4:02 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> That's correct, but someone has to run a scrub someday down the road when we
>> eventually try to graduate.
> Being a PPMC member I'll help out with that when the time comes.
If I know that folks are submitting patches based on Adobe IP, I will not
trust any reports from folks who don't seem to care and will feel compelled
to look myself.
>
>> Here's an example: Suppose we have to remove playerproductinstall from the
>> template for legal reasons and some patch which was made against a version
>> that had it accidentally adds it back in.
> I don't see that as being an issue.
>
> Even assuming the change is not discussed on list and is just submitted by a
> committer without "warning". CTR is the policy for small low risk changes. The
> SVN diffs would be emailed to the list and someone will notice the change. It
> would be discussed on the list and if it was decided there was a issue the
> change would be reverted.
>
> The process does allow for mistakes to be made but that's OK as they can be
> easily and simply corrected by the community.
I was hoping we'd review commits for technical merit, not legality. And I
was hoping not to have to review every commit or watch for certain files to
be changed.
I am basically saying that I think it is a bad practice to be making
modifications to files containing IP that isn't cleared because you are then
taking a chance that something that is never cleared gets back in.
>
> Are you really suggesting that we hold off making changes (including bug
> fixes) until after graduation?
Of course not, just wait until you see the Adobe-cleared version get checked
in and make your changes off that copy.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
