[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [tools-pmc] RE: [ve-dev] Contribution on VE with XML editor
|
ed wrote:
> Parallel IP is not about bypassing the IP process, but rather
> about allowing the committers to make progress while the IP
> process is underway. There is still an initial review
> required to take advantage of parallel IP and one need to be
> approved to use it based on
> that preliminary review.
>Under no circumstances should
> parallel IP be
> used to subvert the process!
100% in agreement there.
I do not know of any circumstance where this process has been abused (though
Bjorn sure knows better)
I see it as a needed flexibility. But we are ll reasonable grown-ups. Why
would we try to screw things up.
To me both the letter (which is simple and straightforward) and the intent
(to offer flexibility, without surrendering any bit of the all important Ip
reviews and other Eclipse ways) have to be respected in principle, for the
// ip or any other stuffs.
I do not know of any project which has been trying to do malicious things
like that, and there are no reason it starts.
And if it would, it would be duly kicked out and blamed by the community
(not talking about the shame wounds inflicted rightfully by the EMO).
So to recap: none is trying to subvert the IP process in any way.
If I am not happy with it, then that measn I have nothing to do with
Eclipse.org, and I am free to start a project elsewhere, be it a fork or
something else.
That is not what I am talking about here.
The only thing we need (for VE at least) is some flexibility:
VE Committers have expressed their whish to keep the current core code base
and project as is, not move back to incubation. I shall respect that.
We have new contributions comming from serious, law-abiding individuals and
organizations, and I want to keep up our fledgling momentum.
I can do it several ways:
- an incubating component (a novel approach) would be preferred.
- an incubating project, asssuming we would be allowed to avoid duplications
of CVS modules, etc
- a complete separate project
--
Cheers
Philippe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: Tools PMC mailing list
> Cc: Tools PMC mailing list; tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> Subject: RE: [tools-pmc] RE: [ve-dev] Contribution on VE with
> XML editor
>
>
> Doug,
>
> I agree with all your reservations, but they are all things
> I've had to live with.
>
> Please don't make comments like folks trying to do releases
> without going through the IP process. That just seems to
> stir up a whole bunch of issues, such as what does the word
> "release" mean and what is the process for doing a release.
> Parallel IP is not about bypassing the IP process, but rather
> about allowing the committers to make progress while the IP
> process is underway. There is still an initial review
> required to take advantage of parallel IP and one need to be
> approved to use it based on
> that preliminary review. Under no circumstances should
> parallel IP be
> used to subvert the process!
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Schaefer
>
> <DSchaefer@xxxxxx
>
> m>
> To
> Sent by: Bjorn Freeman-Benson
>
> tools-pmc-bounces
> <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> @eclipse.org Doug Schaefer
> <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
>
> cc
> Tools PMC mailing list
>
> 10/22/2007 11:08
> <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> AM
> Subject
> RE: [tools-pmc] RE:
> [ve-dev]
> Contribution on VE
> with XML editor
> Please respond to
>
> Tools PMC mailing
>
> list
>
> <tools-pmc@eclips
>
> e.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Incubator components would make sense. Having to recreate the
> project structure, even if it is the same people, is where I
> have issues. Also the façade that they are two separate
> projects is misleading to the community since operationally
> they are not. Projects in my mind are organizational things,
> i.e. the people. Is it the code that?s incubating or the people?
>
> If all we?re trying to achieve is the ability to do releases
> for code that hasn?t gone through the IP process. Maybe
> having an incubator area in the CVS/SVN repository and a
> tagging of bits in the downloads area as incubating would be enough.
>
> I?m just worried that people might be abusing the Incubator
> process as a workaround for going through the proper IP process.
>
> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
>
> From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson [mailto:bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: Doug Schaefer
> Cc: pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; Tools PMC mailing list
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] RE: [ve-dev] Contribution on VE with
> XML editor
>
> Doug,
> What mechanism do you suggest instead (instead of creating
> incubator projects)? Incubator components? (I ask in all
> seriousness because I'd like to simplify things, but I'd also
> like to simplify things in a way that other people find
> simple and not just me :-)
>
> - Bjorn
>
> Doug Schaefer wrote:
> I am not in favor of creating projects just for incubating
> parts of another project. (BTW, that applies to projects at
> Eclipse that have already done that). If that is necessary to
> get work done, then there is something broken with the
> Eclipse process.
>
> --
> [end of message] _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
