[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [epp-dev] A new EPP SOA package
|
IMHO, ideally anyone should be able to specify a package and the EPP
automated build process will build it. We have the infrastructure in place
so it would be a shame for people to have to re-invent the wheel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:18 PM
To: ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; Eclipse Packaging Project
Subject: Re: [epp-dev] A new EPP SOA package
I agree with the agility points 100%. By the same token, EPP is not
the only place that "packages" can be put together. Any project,
working group, ... is free to bundle up a mess of stuff and call it
useful and make it available.
Its just my opinion. EPP should not be the only conduit.
Jeff
Jeff McAffer | CTO | EclipseSource | +1 613 851 4644
jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://eclipsesource.com
On 8-Sep-09, at 11:25 AM, Ian Skerrett wrote:
> I think it is important that we have the SOA package available for
> SR1. A
> couple of points:
>
> - We can't get into a situation where the packages are tightly tied
> to the
> release train schedule. In the agile world we live in today, we
> need to
> have the ability to respond to new requirements. In this case a new
> group
> would like to create a new package, so I believe it is important
> that we can
> respond to their request.
>
> - As for quality, as with any package it is the responsibility of the
> package maintainers to ensure the quality. Like all the other
> packages,
> Zsolt is responsible for testing and signing off on the quality. I
> agree it
> would be nice to have more time to community feedback but I believe
> that is
> Zsolt decision to make.
>
> - In terms of the release review, of course if Swordfish does not
> pass then
> they will not be able to release, so a package is moot. However, it
> is very
> easy to remove something. :-)
>
> - I agree it does seem that SOA package is close to the Java
> Enterprise
> package but fortunately/unfortunately (depending on your
> perspective) the
> intention of the packages is to appeal to a certain user profiles.
> In this
> case the user profile is a SOA developer not a Java developer. The
> contents
> are similar but we want to attract developers that are interested in
> SOA.
>
> In conclusion, I am a +1 on the SOA package. For me it is important
> EPP
> continues to be responsive and agile between release trains. We
> can't live
> in a static environment and only change once a year.
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epp-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of David M Williams
> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 9:24 PM
> To: Eclipse Packaging Project
> Subject: Re: [epp-dev] A new EPP SOA package
>
>> Question: Is there anyone out there who is against (1)? Any
>> objections
> from other package maintainers or team members?
>
> I'm a little against '1'. I don't want my voice to make the
> decision, but
> I'll at least give a dissenting point of view and see if anyone else
> agrees (or disagrees).
>
> My largest concern is that there's no time for any use or feedback
> from
> the community or adopters. Part of the purpose of the simultaneous
> release
> (and packages, in my view) is not the end-result, but the build-up
> to that
> end-result. Seems like the plan for option '1' focus on only the
> end-result ... producing a package ... with out demonstrating the
> steady
> predictability of milestones and release candidates.
>
> A smaller concern is that I think 'Swordfish' is part of the
> package, and
> they are not having their Release Review until the very last minute
> (Sept
> 14th or so?)
> So, there is some risk that it won't make it, and this won't be known
> until the very last minute.
>
> In fact, looking at the list of features, it seems like exactly the
> same
> thing as the EPP 'Java Package' (that is, the one that has mylin,
> and xml
> in it) except for the addition of
> - org.eclipse.wst.ws_ui.feature
> - org.eclipse.swordfish.tooling.feature
>
> So ... doesn't seem like anything that should be hard for users to
> install
> or construct.
>
> On the flip side, I see how the "working group" wants the publicity,
> etc.,
> but I just don't like the packages being a "marking tool" without the
> normal path of users and adopters trying it out for a few months
> first.
> (Remember, normally, someone must be "in the build" for Simultaneous
> Release by M4 or M5, which translates into nearly 6 months of
> community
> use before release).
>
> Would "Galileo SR2" be an option? That'd at least give some time to
> publish some versions before it was officially released.
>
> But, like I said, mine is just one view and I don't feel so strongly
> about
> it that I'd be insulted if you or others didn't agree. I definitely
> don't
> want to be 'negative' to new things, I just felt it important to
> voice the
> counter point of view. I'm fine to go with your decision (as EPP lead)
> either way, without further discussion or justification.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epp-dev mailing list
> epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> epp-dev mailing list
> epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev