RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]RE:Ecli

["Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin,

I agree that creating a package just to get on the EclipseCon stick is a bad
idea.  I am sorry if I implied or suggested that but I also don't see this
happening.   

The packages that have been identified before Feb 11 are existing packages
from Europa plus a new Modeling package.  (I trust Richard is not doing the
Modeling project just to be on the EclipseCon stick :-))

Ian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Oberhuber, Martin [mailto:Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:11 PM
To: ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; eclipse.org-planning-council; Cross project
issues
Subject: RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re:
[eclipse.org-planning-council]RE:EclipseCon memory stick and Ganymede M5

Hi all,

hang on just a second. It's great getting more and more
packages defined, but in order to avoid user confusion
I think it's important that in addition to the plain package
definition there is also a will to maintain, evolve
and market that package in the future.

I'm strongly against rushing packages out the door
just to get on the stick. That's completely against 
the idea of the packages as being an "integrated, 
tested unity with some maintencance and support behind 
it to address integration issues".

Presenting packages on the EclipseCon stick which 
would vanish soon after would probably not serve
us well -- if anybody is considering this, I'd be
more in favor of putting Ganymede on the stick,
as I have mentioned before.

For DSDP, there is interest in getting a package
but we're not yet sure what should be in there
so we decided to have a BOF at EclipseCon talking
that through:
http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/?page=sub/&id=582&notaccepted=all

Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm