[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [epp-dev] Mac Carbon vs. Cocoa builds
|
Mike,
It is definitely not an "us vs. them" thing, but rather a consistency
thing; about avoiding any semblance of a double standard. Maybe I'm too
wordy for that to be clear :-)
We constantly tell individuals and small companies in the community that
they must contribute in order to have a say in decisions about what gets
done and when. And even though Adobe has indeed made significant
contributions to various Eclipse projects, I didn't see any such
participation in EPP. And yet it appeared from some bug reports that it
is Adobe that is driving the need to continue Carbon builds of EPP. (I
could be wrong about that, but did not see any evidence of other
significant demand). Hence I was concerned that Adobe might be getting
"special" consideration (stress on the word the "might").
Also, let me say that I would never have brought this up except for the
fact that some resistance to offering a 64-bit build of EPP packages for
Mac is at least somewhat based on the fact that we would then have 3
difference choices for Mac users (which some argue is too confusing a
message for users). So the existence of the Carbon support made me
curious ("Why do we need that?") and thus my digging.
I did not set out to pick on Adobe or anyone else, but I was
disconcerted by the slight possibility of a double-standard when it
comes to project contribution.
I'm sure you'll understand that I want to be able look myself in the
mirror after I've told some poor individual that in order to get his pet
feature request implemented he has to contribute more to the project; I
don't want to think in the back of my head "unless, that is, you just
happen to be a big member company."
Eric
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
Eric,
I am not involved in this topic at all, but I wanted to mention that
characterizing Adobe as uninvolved in EPP and therefore of no relevance to
these decisions seems a little unfair. Adobe has contributed significantly
to SWT on the Mac. Scott Kovatch basically drove the Cocoa port. So they
have probably done more than any other in helping Eclipse modernize its Mac
support.
I would also point out that Eclipse as a community is very strongly
interested in commercial adoption. If a company as committed as Adobe to
shipping great products on the Mac says they still need Carbon (and btw I
don't know where you got that information from) then perhaps it's not such a
bad idea?
In general, I find trying to paint any of these topics as an "us versus
them" debate is unhelpful.
My main point here is not to debate the merits of any particular choice by
the EPP project on what packages to support. And it would be great if Adobe
wanted to help EPP builds. We're always looking for more help!
Thanks.
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Eric Rizzo
Sent: June-26-09 10:23 AM
To: epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epp-dev] Mac Carbon vs. Cocoa builds
Ian,
I find it interesting that the driving force behind maintaining the
Carbon build seems to be one member company, Adobe. And that member
company does not appear to me to contribute any resources to the EPP
project - is that correct?
Interesting, that is...am I missing something more subtle, or it is just
that EPP is doing a large member company a "favor" here? (not
necessarily anything wrong with that, I'd just like to understand the
motivations for continued maintenance of a "deprecated" technology).
If EPP is going to continue to maintain Carbon builds, it stands to
reason that whomever is most interested in having them available should
also be contributing resources. As far as I can tell, it is Adobe that
is most interested in Carbon builds, but are they actively participating
in EPP?
Sorry to be asking the "hard" questions, but this strikes me as somewhat
of a problem, unless I've overlooked or missed their participation (I do
realize that I'm somewhat new to EPP participation myself). The Eclipse
community (including myself) constantly tells users that they can't just
get what they want without participation; seems that we should hold
member companied to the same standard on specific projects, no?
Eric
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
