Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | using unreleased thirdparty code in eclipse project development builds | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Igor Fedorenko <igor> |
| Component: | Architecture Council | Assignee: | eclipse.org-architecture-council |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | daniel_megert, mike.milinkovich, sharon.corbett, wayne.beaton |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | "stalebug" | ||
| Bug Depends on: | 360994 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Igor Fedorenko
Any estimate when this issue will be resolved one way or another? As it stands now, the only compliant way forward for us is to essentially fork m2e outside of eclipse.org, continue all development on the fork and do the CQs and m2e code drop sometime next January or February (or whenever Juno IP deadline is). I think this is related to bug 360994. In particular, one proposal in that bug is that pre-checkin clearance is restricted to just checking for license and license compatibility. With this model, as long as the license of the third party library hasn't changed the check should be trivial for ongoing changes to a previously approved third party library. Beyond that, maybe the missing piece is a CQ workflow where a CQ is left open and can be updated each time a new "build" of the third party library is consumed in your eclipse build. The CQ would remain open for "incremental" approvals until you are ready to release, and then it is resolved. We have had cases similar to this in the past, but nothing formalized. See for example this CQ where we were evolving a third party library in unison with changes in an Eclipse project: https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1927 We can have a discussion about this in the arch council but ultimately it will need to be a process that the foundation legal folks are comfortable with. Sorry, EclipseCon preparation and travel got in the way of resolving this. We've been discussing it at the EF and we know we can make this work doing something along the lines of what John has suggested. We should have something for you this week. One caveat is that any solution here will effectively push the full due diligence process for affected libraries to the end of the development cycle. Those versions of the third party libraries will have to be fully reviewed before the formal release can be made. Depending on IP Team backlog, this can have an impact on your release schedule. Delta scans are generally faster/easier, but not without risk. Not a show-stopper, just something to keep in mind. A quick update for everyone. I spoke to Igor yesterday. We've been taking a more dynamic approach to IP review on a case by case basis for some time now, as John suggested. It sounds like Igor's requirements may be well suited to the more dynamic approach. We'll work with Igor on his specific requirements in parallel to the development of more general guidelines. Rolling out a more dynamic approach to IP review on a broader basis will have an impact on the IP Team, so I don't want to rush roll out. That said, I expect to publish guidelines for more general application by the end of next week. Janet This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. Sharon, what are your thoughts on this? Can we close this? This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. The last round of IP Policy updates changed things so that projects can now use third-party IP during development without first clearing it with the IP Team. Project committers must take care to ensure that licenses are compatible (if there's any question or help is required, connect with the IP Team). All third-party IP must be vetted via the due diligence process before it may be included in any release. |