I agree that this is rushed. This is an example where doing the
right thing is more important than following the rules. In terms of
perception in the community, the benefits outweigh the risks (IMHO).
Again, it's not fair to require that Gradle support be something
that "users need and want". We do not make that requirement of any
other participating project in any other context.
The big thing that we're missing is assurances that Buildship plays
well with others. At least theoretically, other participating
projects provide this by participating in the milestones.
It seems to me that a reasonable added criterion would be for us to
have those assurances that Buildship is stable and doesn't cause
problems in other plug-ins.
So, I'll extend the criteria:
* Conformance with the EDP;
* Conformance with the rules for participation in the Simultaneous
release; and
* Confirmation that Buildship installs and works without
unintended side effects in all of the Mars M6 packages.
Does this make it better?
FWIW, I reviewed Buildship for conformance to the Mars
participation rules. They need to sign their JARs and tool their
update site for mirrors, but are otherwise in conformance, AFAICT.
They're addressing those issues.
Wayne
On 07/04/15 08:18 AM, Daniel Megert
wrote:
Hi Wayne
I agree with Doug that this looks
a
bit rushed. As already mentioned in the call, I would roll this
out via
Marketplace with the option to join SR1. However, I will +1 your
proposal
if we hear from various Gradle users that this is the tooling
they need
and want, and that it works well for them.
Dani
From:
Wayne Beaton
<wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
04.04.2015 20:15
Subject:
[eclipse.org-planning-council]
Buildship
to join Mars
Sent by:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Greetings Planning Council.
As I stated on the call, I believe that Buildship conforms to
the EDP and--pending
completion of the IP due-diligence process--is ready to do a
proper release
from Eclipse.
I have some further work to do to confirm that Buildship meets
with the
simultaneous release participation requirements.
On this Wednesday's call, we had discussed getting some
independent Gradle
experts to sign-off on the quality of the project. After some
reflection,
it occurred to me that we do not make this requirement of any
other participant
and so I consider it unfair to impose this requirement on
Buildship. I
would like to remove this from any acceptance criteria.
The EMO considers the inclusion of Gradle tools important for
this release.
I've discussed why we think this is important at length, but am
more than
happy to provide more background if necessary. The quality of
this new
Gradle support is very important, so we're going to take the
unprecedented
step of connecting with Gradle experts from the community to
ensure that
the contribution is of the necessary quality. But, again, I
don't feel
that this is a reasonable criterion for acceptance of the
project as part
of Mars.
As we discussed, there are two levels of acceptance here. First,
we need
the Planning Council to allow Buildship to join the simultaneous
release.
Once on board, I will work with the package maintainers to
determine if
they will include Buildship in their package definitions or not.
There
is another further decision to make regarding whether or not it
is included
in the "Eclipse Projects" Market that we discussed for the
Eclipse
Marketplace.
With this in mind, I respectfully request that the Planning
Council set
the following as the acceptance criteria for bringing Buildship
into the
simultaneous release:
* Conformance with the EDP; and
* Conformance with the rules for participation in the
Simultaneous release.
I trust that the Planning Council will accept my assertion that
these criteria
have been met after I've done my review.
If anybody would like to propose additional acceptance criteria,
please
do so ASAP.
Since time is tight, I will ask that we start the vote
immediately using
our standard voting rules. Please respond on this thread with
+1, 0, or
-1 by EOB on Friday, April 10/2015.
Thanks,
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
[attachment
"eclipsecon-100x100-roundgoing.png" deleted by Daniel
Megert/Zurich/IBM]
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|
