I believe that we really need to discuss Tom's comment in the
cross-project list today:
--
"If these bundles are in the repository, shouldn't the owning
projects be Juno particpants?"
I don't know the correct answer, but it strikes me as odd that we
allow non-eclipse third party dependencies to be added to the repo,
but when it comes to a dependency on another project's bundles we
force the other owning project to participate fully in the release.
What if the project does not want to participate? What if there is
an IP acceptable alternative (non-eclipse) project that could be
used? Would we prefer the use of that non-eclipse third party
technology over the eclipse one simple because the owning eclipse
project does not want to participate in the Juno release? It seems
to me that such cases should be treated as any other third party
dependency and we should not force the owning project to participate
in the release.
--
Wayne
On 06/06/2012 04:55 AM, David M Williams wrote:
My apologies for late reminder ... and
in fact I've not even written down agenda yet, but thought it'd be
a good
time to talk about
any "hot" issues for Juno
that are remaining? Hopefully not much ... but ... sounds a little
like
some "have not been heard from"?
So good chance to clarify status of
your projects?
Other than that, we'll mostly discuss
how we'll rest in July, and get busy again in August and
September.
We will use same phone as we've been
using ... I have not had time to investigate the new "SIP number".
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
Explore Eclipse
Projects
|