-----Original Message-----
From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Aaron Spear
Sent: Montag, 24. November 2014 18:03
To: TM project developer discussions; Michael Scharf
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Hi again Doug et all,
Yes, certainly many are enjoying the fruit of the TM committers
vision and labor, and we owe you all a very big debt of gratitude.
Thanks for your seemingly endless enthusiasm, energy and
commitment
to making great software. I do of course agree that it is not
reasonable for my company or anyone else to expect you all to
continue to maintain RSE out of the goodness of your heart
(however
good it may be, there is only so much a human can do!)
Assuming that we or others with a vested interest are willing to
step
up and help, what would that look like? It would appear that
anyone
that is going to help is not likely to be a current committer on
the
project since as you said there is no one left to do this. I am
not
sure how that would work to have myself or someone else from
VMware
or Redhat etc. to jump in for maintenance for the next release
perhaps?
After having written a fair bit of code that extends RSE I do
certainly agree with others that it is not an ideal model, and so
I
am also interested in what a migration path looks like and would
be
interested in contributing work there.
Like Uwe said in another follow on, maybe that looks like adding
the
SSH/SFTP to Target Explorer or something. In practice our usage
has
tended to mash-up different underlying technologies on one
connection. In effect we are using SSH/SFTP for file system
access
and the terminal as well as the ability to spawn remote processes
and
redirect stdio. Then we additionally use unrelated web services
on
the same target to provide other objects in the tree (e.g.
power on
a VM, etc.). So all that to say, a more flexible model in the tree
would be
great. I know very little about it, but it does appear that the
new
org.eclipse.remote API provides much of what we need minus a
terminal, but I am not sure how that fits into an "explorer" view
of
one flavor or another.
thanks again,
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 8:22 PM
To: TM project developer discussions; Michael Scharf
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Hi Aaron, good to hear from you again. I’m glad that Vmware, and
othercompanies, are enjoying the fruits of the hard work that the
RSE
team hasput in over the years. But as I’m sure you’re aware,
these
haven’t beencharitable donations, and those who have contributed
are
now gone.
Theresno one left to do this for you. If you and others want it
alive, you needto step up and invest in it.Doug.On 2014-11-21,
7:30
PM, "Aaron Spear"
<aspear@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>Hi TM friends,>>I am a little unclear on
what is being proposed here, but it sure looks>like you are
talking
about a possible end of life for RSE as we know it?>>I think you
would probably be surprised just how many companies and>others are
using RSE downstream. VMware for instance is using it for>file
system, terminals, and other custom services for a number
of>developer SDK's targeting our main products (including ESX
hypervisor,>vCenter, vCenter Orchestrator and others). We actually
have a
subsystem>and such to support connecting to Windows boxes using
CIFS
that
we were>thinking about contributing. RSE certainly has its warts,
but it
still>has a place in our product lines and VMware would like to
keep
still>it
around.>
I suspect there are other companies in this camp too. Heck I find
it>generally
useful to have around while I am doing web development so that>I
can
easily edit remote configuration files in my local
eclipse>seamlessly.>>Are you looking for new blood to jump in and
maintain it?>>best regards,>Aaron Spear,
VMware>>>-----Original Message----->From:
tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On>Behalf Of Doug
Schaefer>Sent:
Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:13 AM>To: Michael Scharf; TM project
developer discussions>Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM
3.7?>>We quickly discussed this on the architecture council call
and
it
appears>there are
commits happening, but it¹s not being picked up by the portal>at
the
moment.
So it¹s not quite dead yet :). But certainly at issue.>>Doug.>>On
2014-11-13,
11:10 AM, "Michael Scharf" <eclipse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>>>+1 let it
die
unless someone steps up...>>>>Michael>>>>On 2014-11-13 15:52, Greg
Watson wrote:>>> I¹m fine with this if we have everyone¹s
agreement.
Committers on
the>>>project are:>>>>>> € Anna Dushistova>>> € David
McKnight>>> €
the>>>Greg
Watson>>> € Kevin Doyle>>> € Martin Oberhuber>>> € Michael
Scharf>>>
Watson>>> €
Uwe Stieber>>>>>> Assuming Martin and Uwe have already agreed, I¹d
like to have a +1>>>from Anna, David, Kevin, and Michael before
proceeding. I don¹t
think>>>we can proceed unless we have at least a majority of
think>>>committers
voting>>>+1.>>>>>> If we go ahead with archiving TM, I suggest we
use
Luna
SR2 for the>>>final release and withdraw from Mars.>>>>>> Here¹s a
summary:>>>>>> 1. Announce TM change proposal to cross-project a.
Final release of>>> TM 3.7 with Luna SR2 b. TM to withdraw from
Mars 2.
Agreement from>>> TCF project to host Terminal 3. Approval from PMC
for
restructuring>>> review 4. Restructuring review to move Terminal to
restructuring>>> TCF
5.
Approval>>> from PMC for termination review 6. Termination review
7.
Approval>>> TM
is>>> archived>>>>>> Is this agreed? Anybody not in
agreement?>>>>>>
Thanks,>>> Greg>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Oberhuber,