RE: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nothing secret. I want to ask them what
they think a good date would be to put on the agenda. 

Sure, we'll also probably discuss what
our PMC role is supposed to be, clarify what the process is. 

But, don't worry,  we'll listen
to your proposal and consider it fairly.  We are not deciding in advance.

From:	"Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"'WTP PMC communications \(including coordination, announcements,        and Group discussions\)'" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	05/28/2010 03:53 PM
Subject:	RE: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase
Sent by:	wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hmm… A closed discussion
and we’ll get back to you? Strikes me a little contrary to the spirit
of open source…
 
From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:43 PM
To: WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,
and Group discussions)
Subject: Re: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase
 

I'll discuss with the PMC soon, and we'll get back to you on an appropriate
date. My guess is it would be 6/15, at the earliest.

From:	"Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	<wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	05/26/2010 04:44 PM
Subject:	[wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase
Sent by:	wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Esteemed members of WTP PMC,
  
I would like to join one of the upcoming PMC calls to discuss moving the
existing faceted project framework code base from WTP Common to the Faceted
Project Framework (fproj) project under Technology. The fproj project already
contains the v-next code line for the framework. I originally thought that
it would make sense to leave the existing code line in WTP while v-next
is being developed, but experience over the past year has shown this structure
to be less than optimal. It is more difficult than necessary to propagate
changes from the maintenance line to v-next, the community is fragmented
between two projects (forums and mailing lists) and governance issues can
present a challenge. 
  
In terms of logistics, I’d like to propose the following:
  
1. Wait until Helios is complete.
2. Do a move review. 
3. Ask EMO to copy relevant plugins and features from WTP CVS location
to the new project. This will preserve all the history.
4. Start producing builds from this code line. Same plugin id’s, feature
id’s, package names, etc. will be used as in WTP.
5. WTP build is altered to consume these binaries instead of building from
local source. 
6. Ask EMO to delete the moved plugins and features from WTP CVS repository.
  
The result will be a 1.x code line for maintenance and backwards compatibility
work sitting alongside 2.x (v-next) code line. WTP would consume 1.x builds
for foreseeable future. When version 2.0 is ready, the next 1.x release
will be a backwards compatibility shim that will let existing code written
against 1.x releases work with 2.0 framework.  Tentative release schedule
is as follows: 
  
1.4.1 – aligned with Helios SR1 dates
1.4.x – other service releases as necessary
2.0/1.5 – part of Summer 2011 release 
  
Thanks, 
  
- Konstantin_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc
_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc