RE: [epp-dev] A new EPP SOA package

["Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO, ideally anyone should be able to specify a package and the EPP
automated build process will build it.  We have the infrastructure in place
so it would be a shame for people to have to re-invent the wheel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:18 PM
To: ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; Eclipse Packaging Project
Subject: Re: [epp-dev] A new EPP SOA package

I agree with the agility points 100%.  By the same token, EPP is not  
the only place that "packages" can be put together.  Any project,  
working group, ... is free to bundle up a mess of stuff and call it  
useful and make it available.

Its just my opinion.  EPP should not be the only conduit.

Jeff

Jeff McAffer | CTO | EclipseSource | +1 613 851 4644
jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://eclipsesource.com




On 8-Sep-09, at 11:25 AM, Ian Skerrett wrote:

> I think it is important that we have the SOA package available for  
> SR1.  A
> couple of points:
>
> - We can't get into a situation where the packages are tightly tied  
> to the
> release train schedule.  In the agile world we live in today, we  
> need to
> have the ability to respond to new requirements.  In this case a new  
> group
> would like to create a new package, so I believe it is important  
> that we can
> respond to their request.
>
> - As for quality, as with any package it is the responsibility of the
> package maintainers to ensure the quality.  Like all the other  
> packages,
> Zsolt is responsible for testing and signing off on the quality. I  
> agree it
> would be nice to have more time to community feedback but I believe  
> that is
> Zsolt decision to make.
>
> - In terms of the release review, of course if Swordfish does not  
> pass then
> they will not be able to release, so a package is moot.  However, it  
> is very
> easy to remove something.  :-)
>
> - I agree it does seem that SOA package is close to the Java  
> Enterprise
> package but fortunately/unfortunately (depending on your  
> perspective) the
> intention of the packages is to appeal to a certain user profiles.   
> In this
> case the user profile is a SOA developer not a Java developer.  The  
> contents
> are similar but we want to attract developers that are interested in  
> SOA.
>
> In conclusion, I am a +1 on the SOA package.  For me it is important  
> EPP
> continues to be responsive and agile between release trains.  We  
> can't live
> in a static environment and only change once a year.
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epp-dev- 
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of David M Williams
> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 9:24 PM
> To: Eclipse Packaging Project
> Subject: Re: [epp-dev] A new EPP SOA package
>
>> Question: Is there anyone out there who is against (1)? Any  
>> objections
> from other package maintainers or team members?
>
> I'm a little against '1'. I don't want my voice to make the  
> decision, but
> I'll at least give a dissenting point of view and see if anyone else
> agrees (or disagrees).
>
> My largest concern is that there's no time for any use or feedback  
> from
> the community or adopters. Part of the purpose of the simultaneous  
> release
> (and packages, in my view) is not the end-result, but the build-up  
> to that
> end-result. Seems like the plan for option '1' focus on only the
> end-result ... producing a package ... with out demonstrating the  
> steady
> predictability of milestones and release candidates.
>
> A smaller concern is that I think 'Swordfish' is part of the  
> package, and
> they are not having their Release Review until the very last minute  
> (Sept
> 14th or so?)
> So, there is some risk that it won't make it, and this won't be known
> until the very last minute.
>
> In fact, looking at the list of features, it seems like exactly the  
> same
> thing as the EPP 'Java Package' (that is, the one that has mylin,  
> and xml
> in it) except for the addition of
> - org.eclipse.wst.ws_ui.feature
> - org.eclipse.swordfish.tooling.feature
>
> So ... doesn't seem like anything that should be hard for users to  
> install
> or construct.
>
> On the flip side, I see how the "working group" wants the publicity,  
> etc.,
> but I just don't like the packages being a "marking tool" without the
> normal path of users and adopters trying it out for a few months  
> first.
> (Remember, normally, someone must be "in the build" for Simultaneous
> Release by M4 or M5, which translates into nearly 6 months of  
> community
> use before release).
>
> Would "Galileo SR2" be an option? That'd at least give some time to
> publish some versions before it was officially released.
>
> But, like I said, mine is just one view and I don't feel so strongly  
> about
> it that I'd be insulted if you or others didn't agree. I definitely  
> don't
> want to be 'negative' to new things, I just felt it important to  
> voice the
> counter point of view. I'm fine to go with your decision (as EPP lead)
> either way, without further discussion or justification.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epp-dev mailing list
> epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> epp-dev mailing list
> epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev