Hello Bjorn and
Technology PMC members,
Thank you for your
comments. In this e-mail I want to summarize the current situation and our
proposal.
Problem description: at the current moment all Subversion client
libraries violate Eclipse IP policy. Subversive can’t work without at
least one of these libraries.
Solution: Subversive itself is compliant with Eclipse
IP policy, so will be stored at eclipse.org. Subversion client libraries will
be stored at Polarion.org.
Technical solution: the update site site.xml located at eclipse.org contain references
to features (via the <feature url="" tag) that are located
at eclipse.org AND features (<feature url="" tag) that are
located at polarion.org. Thus someone who is installing Subversive via the
Eclipse update manager only needs to select the "Subversive" feature
in the list and then click "select required" and then everything
(including the polarion.org hosted features) is automatically installed.
Do you agree with this
solution?
There is another
question, which I want to clarify. For the Subversive project we defined future
inclusion into Eclipse distribution as the main goal. Sure that at the current
moment we can’t raise this topic simple because project even didn’t
start incubation and there are problems with client library licenses. Anyway we
want to know PMC position regarding this topic – if the Subversive
project will graduate from incubation and have client library with EPL license
then will it be included into standard distribution? What is your vision
regarding the future of the Subversive project?
Best regards,
Igor Vinnykov
Subversive Team
From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson
[mailto:bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:45
PM
To: Igor Vinnykov
Cc: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx;
'Technology PMC'; antonin.pokorny@xxxxxxxxxxxx; frank.schroeder@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
'Janet Campbell'; 'Sharon Corbett'
Subject: Re: Further Questions Re:
Subversion
Igor,
I'm sorry, but I am having a hard time following this whole email trail - it's
just too confusing for someone who was not involved in the process. Thus before
the Technology PMC can approve, I need you to send another email to us with
just a summary of the current situation. Some specific questions that need
answering:
Igor Vinnykov wrote:
Main
project home will be at eclipse.org, where we will create an update site, which
join all Subversive features - all required and optional, located at
eclipse.org and polarion.org. This configuration will be correctly described by
special notice on the project page.
I can read this statement is a number of ways - please
clarify which is correct:
- The update site site.xml located at eclipse.org
contain references to features (via the <feature
url="" tag) that are located at eclipse.org AND features
(<feature url="" tag) that are located at
polarion.org. Thus someone who is installing Subversive via the Eclipse
update manager only needs to select the "Subversive" feature in
the list and then click "select required" and then everything
(including the polarion.org hosted features) is automatically installed.
- The update site site.xml located at eclipse.org
contains only references to features (<feature url=""
tag) that are located at eclipse.org. A second update site site.xml
located at polarion.org contains references to features (<feature
url="" tag) that are located at polarion.org. Thus
someone who is installing Subversive via the Eclipse update manager needs
to use both update sites to install the features.
- Something else entirely... ?
According to this
proposal, an update site, which will be located at eclipse.org, include
following features:
Required
features:
SVN
Team Provider
–Subversive core implementation. Feature and its source code are located
at eclipse.org. Source code doesn’t have dependencies, which
violate Eclipse guidelines.
I'm hoping that this second sentence is a typo and
that you really mean: "This source code does not have dependencies which
violate the Eclipse IP Policy." Unfortunately, the way the sentence
currently reads is "This source code does not have any dependencies and
this (lack of dependencies) violates the Eclipse IP Policy."
Optional
features:
Subversion clients
(installation of one of the following Subversion clients is required):
So if "installation of one of the following
clients is required" then how are they optional features? It seems like
they are required features, right?
Another topic, which I
want to discuss related with main goal for Subversive project. As we defined in
our proposal, the main goal for Subversive is future inclusion into Eclipse
distribution. At the current moment we identified problem related with licenses
for Subversion client libraries, because none of them are compatible with
Eclipse guidelines, which means that project can’t be included into the
distribution. What you recommend to do? What is your vision for this topic?
Clearly you need to find
an SVN client implementation that is license compatible. Either by convincing
one of the existing implementations to dual license under a compatible license
or by re-implementing a client library under EPL.
- Bjorn
