Guillaume Nodet wrote > My point is that there is a source identified, preferably public if > possible, private if not. > > Of course if the API is not public, we can refer to the private commit so > that PMC members which are not OSGi members can be confident about the IP > tracking. > I think it depends on what stage the API is. For example, consider the > work Ray is working on for CDI, I don't think the API is in the OSGi git > repo yet, so either the API is committed there first, or the commit can > refer to Ray's github repo directly. If a spec has been published > officially by the OSGi Alliance, we can refer to a public source too. > Given the API code becomes public at the time it's given to the ASF, I > didn't thought that would be a problem to have it in a public repo in the > first place, but if you're saying it is... I'm fine with that. > > So what about: > "All commits that includes API code from the OSGi Alliance are done in > separate commit and include a reference to the public (preferably) or > private (if not public) source where the code comes from." > > Does that look better to you ? > Absolutely
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org
