Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

[Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I didn't mean any offense by anything I said.   I should have probably used the word stable project for GEF. All I meant was that it's at the bottom of a very large stack and any changes must consider it's placement in this stack.  If the proposed work can be done without breaking any clients, great!  But we won't know this until we try.

I view some of this work in the same way that e4 fits with the platform.  Some stuff will be successful, some won't. Some stuff can be back ported, some can't.   

Regarding the mentoring of new committers, I was following up on Wayne's comment that the barrier to entry is lower.  If someone breaks the build, or API, or is still learning the rules regarding third party libraries, this is much easier to deal with in an incubator rather than a project on the release train, No?

Finally, regarding the innovation, I don't feel GEF is hard to work with.. anymore than the platform is hard to work with.  There are schedules and release review and API freeze, etc... These are all very valuable in an "stable" project, but don't make sense in the beginning.  

If we can do this work in GEF, and we can separate this work from the release train, and folks doing this work are free to committ code during May and June (That's prime time for SoC work and it's also RC time for us), then let's do that.  If those things are hard to manage in an existing / stable project, then let's do the work in an incubator.

The key for me is not where the work is being done. We have people who want to get involved, let's see what we can do to bring them on board.

cheers,

ian

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Ian, more of my personal comments:

1. GEF is clearly a mature project in maintenance mode. [...]

Incorrect. GEF is not in maintenance mode. GEF is a stable project that has fewer major features year over year because the community has not contributed them. GEF has been consistently keeping up with Eclipse releases and new OS platforms every year as part of every Eclipse simultaneous release. When the community has contributed larger features, GEF has accommodated them (Zest is perfect example of that). GEF has been adding small fixes to Helios as dependent teams have asked for them. We have even been asked for API changes and we have gladly incorporated them. A project in maintenance mode would be adverse to all change. This is not the case with GEF.

2. The people doing the work are (for the most part) not active committers on other projects. An incubator will give us a chance to help mentor them.

Does this make sense? What is the difference between mentoring a committer on an incubating project or a released project?

3. [...] Forcing new ideas to follow API freeze rules (for example) will only stiffle innovation.

If you feel this strongly that working within the GEF project is going to stiffle innovation?

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613

Ian Bull ---2010/02/04 05:11:36 PM---Actually, while I think making this part of GEF proper could work, the more I think about it the more an incubator makes sense.

From:	Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	2010/02/04 05:11 PM
Subject:	Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

---

Actually, while I think making this part of GEF proper could work, the more I think about it the more an incubator makes sense.

1. GEF is clearly a mature project in maintenance mode.  Many of the ideas being presented in this proposal stray well off the beaten path.  An incubator will help ensure that GEF maintains it's current direction in the short term, with the possibilty of new ideas flowing in down the road.

2. The people doing the work are (for the most part) not active committers on other projects. An incubator will give us a chance to help mentor them.

3. The GEF project, follows a similar plan as the platform (with respect to schedules, etc...).  Forcing new ideas to follow API freeze rules (for example) will only stiffle innovation.

We could, if it makes more sense, propose this project under "Technology".  But since this is tied closely to GEF, a tools project (IMHO) seems appropriate.

cheers,
ian


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another benefit is that you can have a lower bar for committers on the incubator. You can use the incubator to grow folks into committer-worthy status. Just a thought

The bar is as high as the existing committers set it. ;). I'm still hoping for the "Eclipse Labs" concept to develop so we can create such sandboxes there.
 
Wayne

Doug Schaefer wrote:

BTW, the only benefit would be parallel IP. You can do those other things without the hassle of creating and managing a second project. And even parallel IP could be handled by storing the initial code off site. Until it's ready for the review.

Of course, if you want to do it, I'm fine with that. It just a pet peave of mine.

On Feb 3, 2010 8:56 AM, "Ian Bull" <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I don't know, that's a good question.  I thought that incubators provided a number of advantages for new projects and new ideas, such as:

   * Parallel IP
   * Pre 1.0 (wrt to API)
   * A clear indication to early adopters of what to expect

I don't have a problem with creating this work as a sub component of GEF, although some of this work is clearly "incubation" style work (new ideas with undefined API that will hopefully graduate -- but that will depend on the quality and demand of the work being done).

Anthony, as the GEF lead, what do you tihnk?

cheers,
ian

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > I am on the record a...


_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
 

--
Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
http://www.eclipse.org

I'm going to EclipseCon!
http://www.eclipsecon.org


_______________________________________________
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

--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484

http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource_______________________________________________

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

--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource