RE: [rt-pmc] new Potomac proposal

["Chris Gross" <cgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

For what its worth, we agree. The tooling in Potomac is very small and
likely to continue to be this way for some time.  

Regards,
-Chris Gross
ElementRiver

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:05 PM
To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list
Cc: Mike Milinkovich; Wayne Beaton; Chris Gross
Subject: Re: [rt-pmc] new Potomac proposal

Looks interesting.  The one (potential) issue is the RT scope restriction on
"significant tooling efforts".  As I understand Potomac, it would not be
reasonable/useful to separate the runtime from the tooling at this stage
(they are closely linked as they are evolving). So the question really comes
down to "is the Potomac tooling effort 'significant' in the context of the
RT charter"?  As the end goal of Potomac is the runtime environment I tend
to think of the tooling as "a necessary element" but not the focus and so is
ok at this point. Ideally Potomac would evolve and mature such that
separating the tooling would/could make sense but that is likely some time
off.

Others have thoughts?

Jeff



On 2010-05-18, at 6:40 PM, Anne Jacko wrote:

> Mike, Wayne (RT PMC),
> 
> Please review and comment on this new project proposal from Chris. Thanks.
> 
> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/potomac/
> 
> 
> Anne Jacko
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc