On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 09:36 -0700, Jack Repenning wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Can you give me a link to somewhere I can read about this [Eclipse]
> > requirement
> > for removal? I'm interested in discerning the extent to which they
> > want to trace the banned code to WCs, mirror repositories, backups,
> > and the like, and also
> > what kind of audit trail they would prefer to see in (or outside) the
> > repository. This is an aspect of "obliterate" that I have hardly gone
> > into.
> Some useful links. Look for "Parallel IP Process" in each:
> (or http://bit.ly/16dWHw)
For the record...
The reference to "removing" in this document reads, "a contribution can
be committed into a project's source code repository while the due
diligence process is undertaken. If, at the end of the due diligence
process, the contribution is rejected, it must be removed from the
source code repository."
> (or http://bit.ly/seyVp)
> (or http://bit.ly/5LIve)
For the record (for anyone else reading this), this is what I found in
those docs. The first document says "If [...] the contribution is
rejected, it must be removed from the source code repository." The last
document has a link to
which says: "reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that any Content
which fails the Required Due Diligence is no longer made available as
Distributed Content." "Distributed Content" means content "distributed
by the Eclipse Foundation via its Repository or other means".
> In the Eclipse case, I believe the answer to all your "how concerned
> are they..." questions is "not in the slightest." They are, for
> example, supremely happy with what CVS gives them, the ability to
> centrally delete a tree of *,v files and let the dust fall where it
So, yes, that's how I understand it too.
Received on 2009-07-29 17:49:04 CEST