Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update vendor package Quality Declaration to QL3. #35

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2020

Conversation

hidmic
Copy link
Contributor

@hidmic hidmic commented Jul 1, 2020

Precisely what the title says.

Signed-off-by: Michel Hidalgo <michel@ekumenlabs.com>
@nuclearsandwich
Copy link
Contributor

As far as I can see, nothing has changed about foonathan_memory_vendor since the QD was last updated, but it was previously meeting the QL3 criteria and this update reflects that?

@hidmic
Copy link
Contributor Author

hidmic commented Jul 1, 2020

As far as I can see, nothing has changed about foonathan_memory_vendor since the QD was last updated, but it was previously meeting the QL3 criteria and this update reflects that?

AFAIU that is correct. A QL3 package can have a >QL3 dependency as per REP-2004.

@nuclearsandwich
Copy link
Contributor

A QL3 package can have a >QL3 dependency as per REP-2004.

I'm either confused about what the dependency relationship has to do with the change or I'm mistaken about the effect of this PR.

@hidmic
Copy link
Contributor Author

hidmic commented Jul 1, 2020

I'm either confused about what the dependency relationship has to do with the change or I'm mistaken about the effect of this PR.

Probably didn't provide enough information. My bad.

The foonathan_memory_vendor package is already QL3 according to REP-2004. I presume it was not marked as such before this patch either due to a misunderstanding about the requirements on its dependencies or, most likely, an omission.

Your initial assesment:

nothing has changed about foonathan_memory_vendor since the QD was last updated, but it was previously meeting the QL3 criteria and this update reflects that?

is correct.

@nuclearsandwich
Copy link
Contributor

Appreciate the clarification. That all makes sense to me.

@nuclearsandwich
Copy link
Contributor

Since this is a documentation-only change I don't see a need for CI.

@nuclearsandwich nuclearsandwich merged commit 7ca1e10 into eProsima:master Jul 1, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants