4 ms·
> I'm right now waiting for an IARC approval for a small HTML+Typescript that took me 6h Why do you want IARC and not patching approval for that? Unless your i
by joshuamorton 7y ago
> I'm right now waiting for an IARC approval for a small HTML+Typescript that took me 6h
Why do you want IARC and not patching approval for that? Unless your intent is to make money from it in the future, there's really no need to engage in the IARC process.
Patching approval is painless, and the easiest process for something that you want to be considered to exist outside of Google (its owned by you in your personal capacity, but google maintains copyright to your while-employed-by-google contributions), and doesn't require IARC or any approval other than a quick self-approval process for the first few commits. Then it requires nothing.
- delroth 7y agoFor example, because I don't want people to have to sign a CLA to contribute patches to my weekend side projects? That's incredibly dev hostile.
- joshuamorton 7y agoUnless it's changed recently, projects released under patching (again, not releasing) don't require a signed cla (edit: just checked and they don't). They're not Google owned, Google just maintains ownership of your contributions. And if you look at the releasing guidelines, they only make sense for code developed in google3 and later released. You can't actually follow the releasing process for code developed on non-google hardware, your only option is to follow the patching or iarc methods, and patching is trivially easy and doesn't require anyone to sign a cla.