Difference between revisions of "IHE Testing and Tools Committee Teleconference Minutes 2008-05-12"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
* Steve and Eric developing document to describe procedures for checking in and approving code | * Steve and Eric developing document to describe procedures for checking in and approving code | ||
* Two models: Moderated check-in where all code is scrutinized before becoming part of base vs. enabling trusted contributors to check-in on their own | * Two models: Moderated check-in where all code is scrutinized before becoming part of base vs. enabling trusted contributors to check-in on their own | ||
− | * Action: Steve and Eric will submit draft for review on May 19 Testing and Tools Committee Tcon | + | * '''Action: Steve and Eric''' will submit draft for review on May 19 Testing and Tools Committee Tcon |
===Tools inventory=== | ===Tools inventory=== | ||
* Reviewed | * Reviewed |
Revision as of 18:58, 12 May 2008
Attendees
- Chris Carr, RSNA
- Didi Davis, HIMSS
- Bill Majurski, NIST
- Joan McMillen, RSNA
- Steve Moore, MIR
Minutes
Contributor Agreements
- Reviewed version prepared by Steve Moore with change notation to show divergence from base Apache 2.0 contributions
- Substantive difference is elimination of clause about contributions of third-party software; clause is unnecessary because any addition of third-party software to the project code will be made by the Technical Management Group and not other contributors
- Is it necessary to have separate agreement documents for entities and corporations? Possible to eliminate entities agreement?
- Action: Committee members will consult their organizations about whether separate agreements are necessary
- Final versions of agreements will be clean documents, but will point to marked up version of Apache 2.0 license for reference
- Action: Committee to develop package for Board approval on June 12 tcon to include license and contributor agreements with rationale for selection
Process for Software Contributions
- Steve and Eric developing document to describe procedures for checking in and approving code
- Two models: Moderated check-in where all code is scrutinized before becoming part of base vs. enabling trusted contributors to check-in on their own
- Action: Steve and Eric will submit draft for review on May 19 Testing and Tools Committee Tcon
Tools inventory
- Reviewed