Sam's interpretation is technically correct, but we don't do that in
practice.
You only need a PB for third party content that you redistribute.
We've made some progress on eliminating PBs (at least in the OSGi
context), but we're not there yet.
Wayne
On 08/05/17 03:34 PM, Ed Merks wrote:
No, my reading is that you need a PB CQ for what you redistribute. Of
course the need for a PB CQ is questionably stupid at best in the
first place and I've offered to automate the whole process of tracking
such dependencies. But alas, to no avail...
On 08.05.2017 20:58, Sam Davis wrote:
Whether you need a PB is debateable. My reading of the words is
that you need a PB for anything any configuration might use.
I hope that is not the correct reading because it would imply that if
you have open version ranges you need a PB for every version that
will ever be released in the future, since it *could* someday be
used. This is of course not possible...
Sam
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev