Erik,
I see where you're coming from - I usually find a way to phrase
these things more positively, like 'areas that need work', that
sort of thing. You can stick to the facts rather than more
subjective statements like 'in a sorry state'.
I do think it's important to start making releases, though, so
I'm happy that you are doing this.
1) I'd like to see a rewording of the review information to
emphasize the positive aspects as much as the negative (some of
your explanation below is better)
2) Is the release name a mis-spelling of 'preamble', or something
else?
3) Do you have a website? I don't see a link to it.
Thanks
Ian
On 19/02/2019 10:39, Erik Boasson
wrote:
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for looking into. The concern you have is
definitely a very valid one. On reflection it may be more my
perfectionism speaking than it really being such a problem:
- There is documentation of all the API functions
and of the run-time settings, as well as a getting started
guide to help people along. Various questions have been
asked on GitHub that clearly show people are using it — and
adding to it, even if there haven’t been many pull requests
yet … — and they all started doing so without having to ask
basic questions to get started. So while
I think the documentation is in a sorry
state, perhaps that says more about me than about the
documentation.
- Design documentation is mostly absent. That’s the
other bit I don’t like about the state of the documentation,
which is a barrier to contributing that needs to be dealt
with.
- The code quality is fine and not-so-fine,
depending on how you look at it. In terms of known bugs,
there are few; in terms of compiler and static analyzer
issues, it is very clean. What bothers me is all on the
inside: you can still tell where it the various bits and
pieces came from, from naming of files and functions. This
is a barrier to contributing, and of course, experience has
also shown that such discrepancies often hide issues. But
we’re cleaning these up as we go.
I’ll have to check with the community whether a
milestone build would be sufficient. I’m happy to go either
way, but the project is realistically in a very usable state
as it is (despite my phrasing that you rightly point out), and
in that sense, I think making it an official release does make
sense. After all, it might be another few years before I am
completely happy with the code!
Best regards,
Erik
Hi,
I am all for moving forward
with a first release of CycloneDDS, especially if
there are people in the community asking for it, but I
have to admit I am a bit concerned by the wording of
the release material.
It certainly makes a lot of
sense that be honest about what the release
encompasses, but if the documentation really is in a
'sorry state', and if there are a 'issues' with the
quality of the code maybe it would be better to work
towards a first 0.1.0 *milestone* release in the early
March timeframe, and provide the community with a
tentative roadmap for the next milestones and
eventually a final release?
Benjamin.
Hi PMC members,
Can you please have a look at Cyclone
DDS and see if you are willing to give it a +1 for
moving the 0.1.0 release forward? See: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.cyclonedds/reviews/0.1.0-preambule-release-review
I have had a +1 from the IP team
already and the feedback I got from them has
been incorporated. That gives me some hope that
you will be ok with it. (It better be ok to make
the intended release date of around March 1 …
but it isn’t a hard deadline, so if it slips, it
slips.)
Thanks,
Erik
+1 from me ... but
note that you need a PMC +1, which
requires the PMC members to vote
Dear all,
I intend (hope?) to do a
first release of Eclipse Cyclone
DDS in early March and would like
to ask your approval. Any comments
or feedback welcome — but
hopefully you’ll be ok with giving
it a +1.
Thanks,
Erik Boasson
on behalf of everyone
trying to use or improve Cyclone
DDS
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options,
retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
--
Jens Reimann
Principal Software Engineer / EMEA
ENG Middleware
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
85630 Grasbrunn
Germany
phone: +49 89 2050 71286
_____________________________________________________________________________
Red Hat GmbH,
www.de.redhat.com,
Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht
Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry,
Charles Cachera, Michael
Cunningham, Michael O'Neill
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve
your password, or unsubscribe from this
list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your
password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc
--
Ian Craggs
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx IBM United Kingdom
Eclipse Paho Project Lead & Mosquitto Committer
|