Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval for technology.efxclipse 1.0

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's an interesting thought, Eric. I'm interested to hear what Tom
thinks of the suggestion. I'm also curious to see what the Eclipse PMC
thinks.

There is, however, no reason to move. The Technology PMC is long overdue
for an update to the charter to reflect the actual nature of the
project. We're really no longer just about incubating and are a viable
long term home for projects that contain interesting technology.

Unless you see real value in moving the project, it may not be worth the
effort.

Wayne

On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 19:55 -0400, Eric Rizzo wrote:
> +1 on the release docs. Looks great.
> I would suggest updating the project home page
> (https://www.eclipse.org/efxclipse/index.html) to reflect the Java8
> and Luna requirements.
> 
> As for a new top-level home, perhaps the Eclipse project itself. SWT
> lives under Platform there, so maybe e(fx)clipse belongs as a
> sibling...?
> 
> Eric
> 
> > 
> > Tom Schindl
> > August 5, 2014 1:37 PM
> > Hi PMC,
> > 
> > I'd like to point you to our review documentation [1] for the 1.0
> > release of e(fx)clipse.
> > 
> > With 1.0 we'd also like to leave Incubation status and graduate to a
> > proper Eclipse project who follows API guidelines, ... .
> > 
> > Some highlights:
> > * We fully support Eclipse Luna and e4 Luna Platform
> > * We fixed a total number of 104 bugs/feature requests
> > * We managed to attract devlopers who provided code contributions
> > * We saw commercial adoption of our codebase
> > 
> > The IP-Log has been submitted to the IP-Team today.
> > 
> > Something I'm uncertain and you might be able to clarify is that I
> > somehow remember that Technology only has Incubation projects and I
> > need
> > to find a new Top-Level home for e(fx)clipse. Is that still valid?
> > 
> > The problem I see in case I have to find another Top-Level project
> > is
> > that we have a strong binding to Tooling AND Runtime so the Tools
> > Top-Level project does not feel like the right component, nor does
> > the
> > RT-Project.
> > 
> > If you like to get more informations about the upcoming features I'd
> > like to point you to my blog [2] where I'll go through 1.0 feature
> > one
> > by one including screenshots, ... .
> > 
> > Now that we shipped 1.0, we'll return to 6-8 week *release* cycles
> > so
> > expect more reviews in the months to come and naturally we'll join
> > the
> > Mars release train.
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> > [1]https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.efxclipse/releases/1.0.0/review
> > [2]http://tomsondev.bestsolution.at/tag/release-efxclipse-1-0/
> > _______________________________________________
> > technology-pmc mailing list
> > technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc

-- 
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
http://www.eclipse.org/projects
EclipseCon Europe 2014