Re: [tools-pmc] Fwd: PDT Incubator Project

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Like I said, I'm fine either way. But there has been some discussion of 
this in other mailing lists, such as see 
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/wtp-incubator-dev/msg00639.html

and the impression, given to some people, was that "... persistent 
incubators are themselves considered as subverting the process."

With some good, concrete points raised (by others): "The issue is that 
life-cycle state transitions (like releases and graduation) can only be 
done at the project level (rather than the component level). In addition 
to that, projects aren't supposed to remain in incubation indefinitely."

So, again ... either is workable ... I just wanted to make sure we were 
not "subverting the process" :) 
and had a consistent story for everyone. 

Thanks, 







From:
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Milinkovich 
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
08/18/2009 12:59 PM
Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] Fwd: PDT Incubator Project



Hi David. Thanks for the question.

There are several very active general incubator projects. If there was 
any discussion of retiring the notion, I was not involved in it.

I think that you're correct that Aspect PDT, SmartyPDT and AST View 
could all be easily created as subprojects in their own right under PDT. 
However, there is some administrative overhead associated with the 
creation and maintenance of each project;  I have to assume that the PDT 
project did some due diligence and decided that this was the best 
approach given their current situation.

The real question (for me) is does the notion of a general incubator 
project violate any of the principles that underlie the development 
process?

I don't think it does. You could argue that it is difficult to nail down 
a reasonable scope for such projects. But does that hinder the ability 
to develop a community, keep open and transparent, or maintain high 
quality and IP cleanliness?

I'm willing to have that discussion.

Thanks again,

Wayne

David M Williams wrote:
> Are not general incubator projects a thing of past? I know we in WTP 
> started one before there were some changes in Eclipse Dev. Guide which 
> made it easier to start new, specific projects, which would still start 
in 
> the incubating state, under the appropriate project. We've done the 
> "specific" case for the recent Pave project, for example, and expect our 

> general incubator to be phased out as its current components are 
graduated 
> or archived. 
>
> I'm not opposed to this (or other) general incubating projects, but feel 

> we (Eclipse) should be clear on which direction to steer projects in ... 

> as it is currently a bit confusing. 
>
> For the three example in the proposal, Aspect PDT, SmartyPDT, AST View, 
it 
> seems they would already be in PHP scope, so I assume the main need to a 

> place to put the code, and for some people to have new committer rights, 

> without having full committer rights to the core PHP code? I don't mean 
to 
> make more work for anyone ... but wouldn't this be the case to propose 
> three small incubating projects, each with a defined goal and scope? If 
> not, that's fine, but I'd like to understand why not. 
>
> Again, either outcome is fine with me ... I just think there should be a 

> clear direction from Eclipse Dev. Guide (i.e. Wayne :) 
>
> Thanks, 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Beaton 
> <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 08/17/2009 12:15 PM
> Subject:
> [tools-pmc] Fwd: PDT Incubator Project
> Sent by:
> tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Mike, Wayne, Tools PMC,
>
> Please review and comment on this PDT Incubator Project proposal.
>
> (I sent this out earlier but I did not see a response. Apologies if you 
> did respond and I missed it.)
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/pdt-incubator/
>
>
> Anne Jacko
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: July 23, 2009 4:30:47 PM PDT
> To: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Beaton <
> wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Roy Ganor <roy@xxxxxxxx>, Tools PMC mailing list <
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: PDT Incubator Project
>
> Mike and Wayne (cc Tools PMC, Roy),
>
> Roy has proposed a PDT Incubator project. Please review and comment -- 
> thanks!
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/pdt-incubator/
>
> Anne Jacko
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
>
>
>