I would like to better
understand where the push back is coming from.
Anthony, are you concerned that this means more work? Or that the work
will be split? Or that it will be confusing for the community? Or
confusing for somebody else? I'm having trouble understanding the
underlying problem. Sorry.
IMHO, Ian's item #2 is probably one of the best reasons to create an
incubator. Unfortunately, being a committer is a binary state on a
project: either you have access or you do not. Earlier attempts at
finer-grained access have resulted in lots of misery for all involved.
Without the incubator, existing GEF committers will have to work with
contributors for any contribution. This takes time away from other
important GEF activities, like working on in-plan items.
In the incubator, you can have a different set of committers (which may
intersect with the GEF committers) managing off-plan contributions from
the community while working on new and innovative ideas. All this,
under the supervision of the "parent" GEF project. Some of these
contributors can become committers on the incubator and learn the
social conventions while they work on their cool new ideas; making
these people committers on the incubator will reduce the time
requirements from GEF committers (though somebody will have to monitor
these new committers to make sure that the development process is
followed). This pattern has been followed by numerous mature projects.
I'm thinking of ways that we can make this better. Some thoughts:
1) Change the EDP so that mature projects can designate a portion of
their code repository as their "incubator" and allow this portion to
have its own set of committers, and leverage parallel IP. This would
require significant change to the processes the Foundation has in
place; as I go through the mental exercise, it all feels just a little
too cumbersome.
2) Relax some of the requirements on (some) projects. There is some
minimal project data at needs to be provided via the portal (like
description, source code URLs, that sort of thing). Incubators, at
least, shouldn't have to have releases. Do they need to have plans? If
we reduce the requirements placed on an "incubator" project, does that
make creating one more palatable? I've been discussing this in my blog
[1] and in bug 300000 [2]
Wayne
[1]
http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/wayne/2010/01/28/acknowledging-incubators/
[2]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=300000
Ian Bull wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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
--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com
|
http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
