+1
On 10/04/2015 3:04 PM, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
I agree that this is rushed. This is an example where doing the
right thing is more important than following the rules. In terms
of perception in the community, the benefits outweigh the risks
(IMHO).
Again, it's not fair to require that Gradle support be something
that "users need and want". We do not make that requirement of any
other participating project in any other context.
The big thing that we're missing is assurances that Buildship
plays well with others. At least theoretically, other
participating projects provide this by participating in the
milestones.
It seems to me that a reasonable added criterion would be for us
to have those assurances that Buildship is stable and doesn't
cause problems in other plug-ins.
So, I'll extend the criteria:
* Conformance with the EDP;
* Conformance with the rules for participation in the
Simultaneous release; and
* Confirmation that Buildship installs and works without
unintended side effects in all of the Mars M6 packages.
Does this make it better?
FWIW, I reviewed Buildship for conformance to the Mars
participation rules. They need to sign their JARs and tool their
update site for mirrors, but are otherwise in conformance,
AFAICT. They're addressing those issues.
Wayne
On 07/04/15 08:18 AM, Daniel Megert
wrote:
Hi Wayne
I agree with Doug that this
looks a bit rushed. As already mentioned in the call, I would
roll this out via Marketplace with the option to join SR1.
However, I will +1 your proposal if we hear from various
Gradle users that this is the tooling they need and want, and
that it works well for them.
Dani
From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 04.04.2015 20:15
Subject:
[eclipse.org-planning-council]
Buildship
to join Mars
Sent by:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Greetings Planning Council.
As I stated on the call, I believe that Buildship conforms to
the EDP and--pending completion of the IP due-diligence
process--is ready to do a proper release from Eclipse.
I have some further work to do to confirm that Buildship meets
with the simultaneous release participation requirements.
On this Wednesday's call, we had discussed getting some
independent Gradle experts to sign-off on the quality of the
project. After some reflection, it occurred to me that we do
not make this requirement of any other participant and so I
consider it unfair to impose this requirement on Buildship. I
would like to remove this from any acceptance criteria.
The EMO considers the inclusion of Gradle tools important for
this release. I've discussed why we think this is important at
length, but am more than happy to provide more background if
necessary. The quality of this new Gradle support is very
important, so we're going to take the unprecedented step of
connecting with Gradle experts from the community to ensure
that the contribution is of the necessary quality. But, again,
I don't feel that this is a reasonable criterion for
acceptance of the project as part of Mars.
As we discussed, there are two levels of acceptance here.
First, we need the Planning Council to allow Buildship to join
the simultaneous release. Once on board, I will work with the
package maintainers to determine if they will include
Buildship in their package definitions or not. There is
another further decision to make regarding whether or not it
is included in the "Eclipse Projects" Market that we discussed
for the Eclipse Marketplace.
With this in mind, I respectfully request that the Planning
Council set the following as the acceptance criteria for
bringing Buildship into the simultaneous release:
* Conformance with the EDP; and
* Conformance with the rules for participation in the
Simultaneous release.
I trust that the Planning Council will accept my assertion
that these criteria have been met after I've done my review.
If anybody would like to propose additional acceptance
criteria, please do so ASAP.
Since time is tight, I will ask that we start the vote
immediately using our standard voting rules. Please respond on
this thread with +1, 0, or -1 by EOB on Friday, April 10/2015.
Thanks,
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
[attachment
"eclipsecon-100x100-roundgoing.png" deleted by Daniel
Megert/Zurich/IBM] _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-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.
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-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.
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-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.
|