Ok, looks good. I just saw that the Branding Rules do not seem to
require the link for Reporting a Vulnerability [1]. However, you should
add it to the footer as well.
Regarding graduation, we usually require the graduating project to
document their progress wrt to community building and adoption of the
Eclipse Development Process in the review information. Can you add this
information?
My understanding is that the project has already been
around for several years within the Eclipse Foundation under a different
name? Is that also the reason why there hadn't been any release review
for any of the recent releases?
The project has been around for 10+ years extending Eclipse IDE + CDT from the outside. Last year Frédéric Desbiens convinced Liviu - the project lead - to bring the project to the Eclipse Foundation. Liviu has been running this project for a long time and it is integrated into many embedded companies' Eclipse based products. For me as the Eclipse CDT project lead I am delighted to have this project under the foundation as it helps secure its long term viability. There is a new top level Eclipse IDE download which features this set of plug-ins in the 2020-12 release (RC1 here[1]). I believe this is the first IoT project to join the SimRel.
The issue we are seeing here is the disconnect from what Incubation means within Eclipse, and with the general view of what Incubation means to the wider community. For the Eclipse EPP project the incubating labelling has been removed from the download page and the download file names (See
Bug 564214). So while the embed-cdt project is still new to the Eclipse Development Process, and in my role as mentor I am working with Liviu the project lead, there is a strong desire to graduate out of incubation to reflect the maturity of this project in the wider community.
As for why there were no release reviews - I am not sure, but probably because they were really milestones building up towards the first official release 6.0.0 of the plug-ins as part of the Eclipse 2020-12 release. Or perhaps just learning the development process.
Does the IoT PMC still see this project as aligned with the goals of the IoT top level project?
Maybe you can shed some light on this, Roger?
Sorry - as not being particularly familiar with the IoT PMC, I am unsure who Roger is. Is Roger part of the PMC, I didn't see his name there[2] - but I did see Roger Light as a top contributor to the IoT set of projects?
I hope this helps shed light on things and I look forward to continuing this conversation.
Thanks,
Jonah
