Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1318185730.49861.YahooMailClassic@web113503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksoiHW8wXexgOSVPgOKKdz0UW0NF6Okf=h2qXjewM3WZ78A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1318185730.49861.YahooMailClassic@web113503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:15:17 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKTa1mjbuYR3KCKK=S2Y09X1jsrpC7WRALvk-hEWnaCms9P=rw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: How about a new branch for the legal changes? (was Re: A
 systematic approach to IP review?)
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, pfg@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a
> change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes,
> and given that it requires manual intervention and is not
> something that can be done in one huge mega commit ...
>
> I think we should create a branch for this changes in merge
> them in two steps: corresponding to both SGAs. This way
> merging CWSs and bugzilla patches can go on without pain and
> people can get started on the header changes.

I recommend separating review from (automated) execution. If this is
done, a branch shouldn't be necessary...

Robert