+1 for the validate button if there are cycles to
make that happen or if it can reuse the existing feature
(eg, if validating auto-sends to the project lead or
specified email address).
But overall I’m leaning even more in John’s
direction that these do provide utility when running
correctly. Perhaps not as much for Ed, but Ed is likely to
be way more on top of this than others. On the Mylyn
projects, I have repeatedly witnessed those updates trigger
fixes. I don’t think we should optimize reducing noise for
projects that will never keep their metadata up-to-date at
the cost of removing a useful trigger for those who want to,
but are not quite on top of it.
Mik
--
Dr. Mik Kersten
Tasktop CEO, Mylyn Lead, http://twitter.com/mik_kersten
Assistant: zoe.jong@xxxxxxxxxxx,
+1-778-588-6896, Skype: zoe.e.jong
I'm torn on
this. It does have a fairly high noise-to-signal ratio but
often it does point out valid omissions. Having recently
done metadata setup for a new project, I definitely
appreciated the validation that everything was set up
correctly. As Ed suggests, having a button where I can
validate the data myself without widely broadcasting the
results would be handy. Maybe that, in combination with
running it automatically once or twice a year would be
enough.
John
Hey folks.
I tend to regard keeping project metadata/websites/...
up-to-date as one
of those "selfish-best interest" sorts of things. That
is, projects
should keep this information up-to-date because it is
good for the
health of the project.
Every month we have a script that runs to check that
certain bits of
metadata are properly specified. Missing, or incorrect
entries are
reported via email message to the project mailing
list.
Every month, a couple of project leads contact me and
the Webmaster
about the messages, generally because something that's
being reported
doesn't make sense (e.g. reports that a next release
isn't specified
when one seems to have been specified). Every month,
the Webmasters and
I spend a good couple of hours chasing down the
problem and tend to end
up modifying the check scripts. These good couple of
hours could be
better spent doing other more valuable things for the
committers and
community.
Most projects--it seems--just ignore these messages
anyway.
So... I've been thinking. Is it time to just turn off
this notification
mechanism? Or maybe just run it twice a year or
something?
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks,
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by
processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be
permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
to request removal.