Thanks for your support Craig. This sounds more than adequate
for moving the user community over.
From:
dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Craig Setera
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:30 AM
To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Missing requirements to join galileo
I haven't had a lot of time to participate lately, but
wanted to comment quickly re: #1...
This can only really happen once we have a true
"release". We are close there. At that time, I will start
a transition plan. I do not want to pull the rug out from under EclipseME
users, so this will definitely be a "phasing out" over time rather
than an abrupt cut over. Some initial steps will happen relatively
quickly after the release:
- Announcement of MTJ release via blog and mailing list with
a nudge to start moving over to MTJ.
- Subsequent "nudges" via the email list when
people come to ask for help.
What I won't do... certainly not up front is to get rid of
the mailing lists or blogs. In addition, Sourceforge will continue to
keep around the EclipseME releases per their policy. In the end, I think
the transition will happen pretty easily. MTJ already has more to offer
than the last EclipseME release in terms of features/functions. That is
certainly the advantage that was gained by restarting with the EclipseME code
base. It will continue to grow. Moving the support structure
(mailing list/newsgroup) is likely going to be the hardest part. That is
going to require all of us to spend time doing real user/customer support to
give users the confidence that MTJ is around to stay and that it is truly the
place they want to be.
On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Gaff, Doug wrote:
Christian recently asked me what it would take to graduate MTJ.
This is the advice I gave him:
There are two important milestones, and one lesser one:
1) Visibly moving the EclipseME community to MTJ and phasing out
EclipseME - mailing list, newsgroup participation, etc. This is your user
community.
2) Getting committer diversity. You need more than Mot working
on this.
3) (lower priority) Enabling the framework aspect of MTJ.
EclipseME is more of a tool than a framework. Graduation really requires a
clear framework. I think you are close on this.
Ideally, it would be great to reach 1.0 on the Galileo train, so
adding the above initiatives should be a priority for Galileo.
when to join the train is one of the main items to
discuss on our next mtj call on thrusday. probably we will join only on M4 to
give us time to do a new MTJ release before that and keep a single development
branch (at least this seems to be the best option to me). on our wiki there is
a list of the other options (http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/MTJ/Post_0.9).
if you have some time to take a look and give us a feedback on that, it
would really helpful. we want to make sure we have a good direction after 0.9
release.
Signing and packing are critical in the must list. The ramp down
policy is very straightforward. You can copy one of the other projects and just
follow it. Basically the policy governs what you will do when last minute
issues arise during testing. Regarding Orbit, do you have anything that you
need from Orbit?
When are you planning to get on the train? #10 on the Galileo
page says you need to join by M4.
Hi
mtj,
Galileo
defines a set of requirements that each eclipse project must fulfill in order
to join the train. I made an initial analysis of our gaps and their are
documented on the wiki
http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/MTJ/Galileo_Train_Gap
There
are probably other aspects that are missing there that we will only realize
when we start to do the actual work. Feel free to comments / send feedbacks on
the list
:)
gep
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
|