[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Release Train Participation
- From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:11:52 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
For what it's worth, I couldn't agree more with everything you've
written in your replies. It matches my own opinion to 100%.
On 2010-12-16 04:52, Scott Lewis wrote:
On 12/15/2010 6:06 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
I completely understand the resource problem but have an honest
question. What is the real incremental cost of being on the train?
Unfortunately, in my view it's quite a lot. The must dos for Indigo
continue to increase...and most of the existing (as opposed to new)
ones also have a significant yearly incremental cost. There is also
the plan creation, the review materials creation, the reviews
themselves, and the inevitable time cost of the IP process (witness
the yearly last minute fire drills around license consistency, etc),
and the incremental releng costs (which never seem to actually go to
0...although all of us would like it if they did).
You don't have to do a new or extra release for the train. You could
contribute the current released version of ECF to Indigo with no
additional work other than the must dos.
As for the train requirements, yeah, that is a burden. However, I'd
argue that they are in place, for the most part, to help our consumers.
In my view they a) place too much of a burden on the project
committers (i.e. the committers are the ones that do the actual work
of meeting the requirements); b) are overly focused on helping certain
They are likely good things for your consumers too.
Perhaps for some consumers...but at the necessary cost of other
consumers. For example, every bit of time that Markus, Wim, or I
spend upon releng or IP for the simultaneous release (for example), is
time *not* addressing other consumer's desires for new discovery
features and/or providers.
There are sure to be some that are less relevant to RT-ish projects.
We should seek to change this or get exemptions where it makes
sense. From what I can see though the real work of being on the
train is doing a release. So is the question "should ECF do releases"
or "should ECF be on the train"?
No, I don't think this is right. After doing at least 7 releases of
ECF and 5 simultaneous releases, I can confidently say there *is* a
significant incremental cost of being on the train...over doing a
regular ECF release (which is always a fair amount of work). And
thanks to the additional must dos, this incremental cost consistently
increases. It has become akin to a set unfunded mandates IMHO.
There's little doubt in my mind that we/ECF will continue to do
regular releases (e.g. we just had a 3.4 release in November and have
3.5 release tentatively planned for Feb/Mar 2011). In fact, given our
new build infrastructure and move to git, our release frequency might
actually increase. This is also of benefit to many consumers.
In my opinion, however, the value of the simultaneous release to
communities like ECF's has gone down...and the costs of
participation have gone up over the past few years (i.e. my previous
note). The simultaneous release itself is no longer very 'new' to
lots of folks (users/consumers of Eclipse RT technology and/or
Eclipse)...and so doesn't really result in much improved
exposure/distribution for participating projects (like ECF).
Not being in the Indigo repo would significantly dampen exposure and
consumption in my opinion. The Helios repo is a very convenient and
trusted location to get Eclipse components.
Perhaps...but no resources is no resources. How is that to be
addressed? If additional resources can be found and/or contributed
then the choice to continue with Indigo is obvious/easy. If
additional resources can't be found, then I don't feel I can commit to
something that I knowingly cannot do.
ecf-dev mailing list