Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 319984

Summary: medic.core exports logback packages with wrong version
Product: [RT] Virgo Reporter: Dmitry Sklyut <dmitry>
Component: unknownAssignee: Project Inbox <virgo-inbox>
Status: CLOSED FIXED QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: P3 CC: glyn.normington
Version: 2.1.0.M02-incubation   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
Attachments:
Description Flags
patch for this issue glyn.normington: iplog+

Description Dmitry Sklyut CLA 2010-07-15 09:41:31 EDT 
Build Identifier: 

medic.core build exports logback packages with medic.core version vs. logback version.

Details:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/virgo-dev/msg00103.html

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Dmitry Sklyut CLA 2010-07-15 10:06:20 EDT 
Created attachment 174398 [details]
patch for this issue

Based on the discussion on the mailing list, attaching this patch:

1. remove org.eclipse.virgo.ch.qos.logback.classic.woven from build - as it is not needed to be weaved anymore
2. change a dependency in medic.core to vanilla  ch.qos.logback.classic vs. org.eclipse.virgo.ch.qos.logback.classic.woven
3. modified medic.core template.mf to include export template for ch.qos.logback.* with correct logback version.
Comment 2 Glyn Normington CLA 2010-07-15 10:35:32 EDT 
Patch applied in commit 4bcc97b1d1dbbd5e69d0d1d2d01c99bdc9129a79. I will now ripple up from medic to ensure there are no lurking issues.
Comment 3 Glyn Normington CLA 2010-07-15 11:21:55 EDT 
Hi Dmitry

In preparation for merging this branch and in view of the due diligence process [1], please could you confirm that you wrote 100% of the code you contributed and that you have the right to contribute the code to Eclipse.

I note that no new files were introduced which would have needed the appropriate License header.

I should have confirmed this before pushing the code to Eclipse. My mistake, for which I apologise.

Thanks,
Glyn
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
Comment 4 Dmitry Sklyut CLA 2010-07-15 11:57:19 EDT 
Glyn,

I wrote (or commented out in this case) all of the code and I have done it with intent to contribute it to Eclipse.

Not sure what you mean by a right to contribute - but there is no IP issues or legal checks that need to be run on my side.  All code was done on personal time.

Thanks!
Dmitry
Comment 5 Glyn Normington CLA 2010-07-15 21:52:40 EDT 
Hi Dmitry

(In reply to comment #4)
> Glyn,
> 
> I wrote (or commented out in this case) all of the code and I have done it with
> intent to contribute it to Eclipse.

Thanks. (I know this was a tiny amount of code - just trying to get the process right for future reference.)

> 
> Not sure what you mean by a right to contribute - but there is no IP issues or
> legal checks that need to be run on my side.  All code was done on personal
> time.

That sounds ok. To be clear: you would not have a right to contribute code if your employment contract said, for example, that all software developed in personal time belonged to your employer and you did not have your employer's permission to contribute the code. Please confirm that nothing like this is the case.

> 
> Thanks!
> Dmitry

Glyn
Comment 6 Dmitry Sklyut CLA 2010-07-15 22:17:29 EDT 
Confirming that I have 100% rights to contribute code.  My employer is more than happy to have employees contributing to open source projects.

Regards

Dmitry
Comment 7 Glyn Normington CLA 2010-07-16 05:35:44 EDT 
(In reply to comment #6)
> Confirming that I have 100% rights to contribute code.  My employer is more
> than happy to have employees contributing to open source projects.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dmitry

Great. Thanks Dmitry.

The ripple succeeded so the changes are good. Closing this bug.