Community
Participate
Working Groups
Platform UI has a plenty of error reports. Dani told me that he has not enough time to review and triage error reports. I do my best to spot "easily actionable error reports" and "critical error reports". However, at the end of the day, the platform has not enough resources to triage and fix them. Thus, I propose to pay developer(s) on a per-fixed-bug basis. The EF has models for this in place.
Marcel, I voted -2 for the following reason: -- In general I support hiring full-time developers at Eclipse. However, a full-time developer focusing on just one project is not good (IMHO). Instead it should be someone with strong product management skills focusing on the Java IDE as a whole! -- After reading the bug description I see a conflict between what it states and the summary. I would classify a full-time committer as a full-time employee (FTE) with a regular salary (what the summary implies). It is different from contracting developers with a budget on a pay-per-fix base (what the description implies). Please clarify!
(In reply to Gunnar Wagenknecht from comment #1) > > Please clarify! Looking at the goal to accomplish, to me this makes no difference. Dani said that Platform has not enough resources to triage and fix bug reports. I'm fine with any solution that get's the bug number down. > -- > ... Instead it should be someone with strong product management skills focusing on > the Java IDE as a whole! I think this is worth a separate bug to discuss this.
-2 for me as well until we have a concrete roadmap whose content is beneficial to our end users.
I think the discussion here should be about the specific focus of the work, not the employment model. It will be up to the EF staff to figure out what is the most effective way to get it done (salaried employee vs contract work). I suggest changing the title of this one to "Fund a developer to triage and fix the most frequently occurring errors in Platform UI".
(In reply to John Arthorne from comment #4) > I suggest changing the title ... to ... Done.
(In reply to Pascal Rapicault from comment #3) > -2 for me as well until we have a concrete roadmap whose content is > beneficial to our end users. Pascal, according to the error reports we received, platform has 1500+ bogus locations in code. My intension is that someone needs to triage those and start fixing them. Both Platform leads said that they don't have the resources to triage them. Thus, someone else has to do it. Since there is no other person, triaging and fixing needs to be done as part of the contract. It's obvious that the person who works on this, needs some trust that he actually spent the time on triaging. But that should be out of scope this discussion. To reply to Lars' -2: FEEP does not exclude the possibility to fund a person for triaging and fixing bugs - even full time if the EF thinks it's worth it and has the trust that the person will do good.
Note really an open way to change the scope/summary of this bug and let people vote on a completely different thing without notifying the community.
(In reply to Dani Megert from comment #7) > Note really an open way to change the scope/summary of this bug and let > people vote on a completely different thing without notifying the community. Note really intentional to be intransparent. I just had to get my public transport before completing all actions.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie.
This issue has been migrated to https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/issues/224.
