Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[gef-dev] dot4zest

Hi Ian,

We need to make a decision on where to take this project.

What are the long terms for dot4zest in GEF? Do we have a proposed committer to take it over? Did the CQs clear legal review?

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613

----- Forwarded by Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM on 2010/02/22 03:10 PM -----


From:

Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

2010/02/11 01:31 PM

Subject:

Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal




>From what I remember, the original CQ (dot4zest) does have dependency on a 3rd party library.  The authors of the 3rd party library (who are actually Eclipse committers) have indicated that they would be happy to move the code to eclipse.org (or we could put it in Orbit), but we were waiting to sort out where it should be placed.

My view, if we have an incubator, then we push for the 3rd party library to move to
eclipse.org.  If we don't use an incubator, then we add the library to orbit.

For interest, the 3rd party library is a model (and parser) for the dot language.  It's licensed under the EPL and available from [1].

[1]
http://code.google.com/p/emfmodelvisualizer/

cheers,
ian

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Actually, this is more of a question for you and the PMC.

    Given the current EDP and IP Policy, you cannot take advantage of Parallel IP for new code in GEF (you can leverage Parallel IP for newer versions of libraries that you already have IP clearance for).

    The way I see it, you have two options:

    1) Wait for the CQs to clear and move the code directly into GEF. The existing committer will be able to check the code into CVS.

    2) Create an "Incubator" subproject of GEF. Given the current EDP, this will take some time; the process requires a minimum of two weeks in proposal, followed by a week of "review". After that one-time effort, you'd have a place to put new ideas and committers, grow them (while working CQs through the system), and eventually move them to a more permanent home (or archive them -- the code, not the committers).

    FWIW, I am working on changes to the EDP that I hope will make creation and management of a single "permanent incubator" per mature project much easier. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do to shorten that three-week creation process.

    Wayne

    Anthony Hunter wrote:


    I guess this is a question for Wayne, how do you want us to proceed?

    We can start with dot4zest right away, we have a committer with code who wants to check into CVS and take advantage of parallel IP. There are CQs for some of the code already. We can do an new GEF committer election right away?

    Cheers...
    Anthony
    --
    Anthony Hunter mailto:
    anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
    Software Development Manager
    IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
    Phone: 613-270-4613


    Inactive hide details for Doug Schaefer ---2010/02/11 12:18:29 PM---BTW, where did this end up? Ian and Anthony are you workingDoug Schaefer ---2010/02/11 12:18:29 PM---BTW, where did this end up? Ian and Anthony are you working together on a plan for a path forward?



    From:  
    Doug Schaefer <
    cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>

    To:    
    Tools PMC mailing list <
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

    Date:  
    2010/02/11 12:18 PM

    Subject:        
    Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



    BTW, where did this end up? Ian and Anthony are you working together on a plan for a path forward?

    BTW2, Boris, feel free to speak up here. I think it's important that we get your insight to help resolve this matter.

    Doug.

    On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Doug Schaefer <_cdtdoug@gmail.com_ <mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

         Excellent. Thanks Wayne and Anthony. I think [3] would be huge
         boost for the GEF community. The CDT has a pretty big committer
         set and the social conventions work well. Peer pressure is what
         keeps everything in check. The benefits well outweigh the risks.

         Doug.


         On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Wayne Beaton

         <_wayne@eclipse.org_ <mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
         As long as you are not expecting fine-grained access control to
         the code repository, #3 sounds grand to me. We are moving toward
         our established ideal of having one UNIX group for each project.
         That means that every committer gets access to every part of the
         repository. Restrictions are managed using social conventions.

         >From my POV, there is some risk (albeit small) that committers
         with ability to touch all parts of the GEF repository, but
         limited understanding of their place in it may do unintentional
         damage. Or worse, intentional damage.

         Wayne

         Anthony Hunter wrote:

               Hi Wayne

               Can we do this?

               [3] I run committer elections for new developers who want
               to work in GEF. The new committers complete the new
               commiter forms and for foundation gets them processed.
               They are then "legal" to work on the code in the exiting
               GEF project. There is no risk here since they are working
               on a portion of their code in the GEF repository.

               Is creating an incubator going to be faster than [3] ?

               My only push back is that I would like to see new
               committers and their GEF work being done on in GEF and not
               "somewhere else".

               If we really feel a GEF incubator is the only way, then
               you have my support.

               Cheers...
               Anthony
               --

               Anthony Hunter mailto:_anthonyh@xxxxxx.com_

               <mailto:
    anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>
               Software Development Manager
               IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
               Phone: 613-270-4613


               Inactive hide details for Wayne Beaton ---2010/02/08
               10:52:21 PM---I would like to better understand where the
               push back is comWayne Beaton ---2010/02/08 10:52:21 PM---I
               would like to better understand where the push back is
               coming from. Anthony, are you concerned that this means
               more work? Or



               From:              Wayne Beaton <_wayne@eclipse.org_ <mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

               To:                Tools PMC mailing list <_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_


               <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

               Date:              2010/02/08 10:52 PM

               Subject:                    Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

               ------------------------------------------------------------------------



               I would like to better understand where the push back is
               coming from. Anthony, are you concerned that this means
               more work? Or that the work will be split? Or that it will
               be confusing for the community? Or confusing for somebody
               else? I'm having trouble understanding the underlying
               problem. Sorry.

               IMHO, Ian's item #2 is probably one of the best reasons to
               create an incubator. Unfortunately, being a committer is a
               binary state on a project: either you have access or you
               do not. Earlier attempts at finer-grained access have
               resulted in lots of misery for all involved.

               Without the incubator, existing GEF committers will have
               to work with contributors for any contribution. This takes
               time away from other important GEF activities, like
               working on in-plan items.

               In the incubator, you can have a different set of
               committers (which may intersect with the GEF committers)
               managing off-plan contributions from the community while
               working on new and innovative ideas. All this, under the
               supervision of the "parent" GEF project. Some of these
               contributors can become committers on the incubator and
               learn the social conventions while they work on their cool
               new ideas; making these people committers on the incubator
               will reduce the time requirements from GEF committers
               (though somebody will have to monitor these new committers
               to make sure that the development process is followed).
               This pattern has been followed by numerous mature projects.

               I'm thinking of ways that we can make this better. Some
               thoughts:

               1) Change the EDP so that mature projects can designate a
               portion of their code repository as their "incubator" and
               allow this portion to have its own set of committers, and
               leverage parallel IP. This would require significant
               change to the processes the Foundation has in place; as I
               go through the mental exercise, it all feels just a little
               too cumbersome.

               2) Relax some of the requirements on (some) projects.
               There is some minimal project data at needs to be provided
               via the portal (like description, source code URLs, that
               sort of thing). Incubators, at least, shouldn't have to
               have releases. Do they need to have plans? If we reduce
               the requirements placed on an "incubator" project, does
               that make creating one more palatable? I've been
               discussing this in my blog [1] and in bug 300000 [2]

               Wayne

               [1]
               __
    http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/wayne/2010/01/28/acknowledging-incubators/__
               [2] __
    https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=300000__

               Ian Bull wrote:

                          Actually, while I think making this part of GEF
               proper
                          could work, the more I think about it the more an
                          incubator makes sense.

                          1. GEF is clearly a mature project in
               maintenance mode.
                          Many of the ideas being presented in this
               proposal stray
                          well off the beaten path. An incubator will
               help ensure
                          that GEF maintains it's current direction in
               the short
                          term, with the possibilty of new ideas flowing
               in down the
                          road.

                          2. The people doing the work are (for the most
               part) not
                          active committers on other projects. An
               incubator will
                          give us a chance to help mentor them.

                          3. The GEF project, follows a similar plan as
               the platform
                          (with respect to schedules, etc...). Forcing
               new ideas to
                          follow API freeze rules (for example) will only
               stiffle
                          innovation.

                          We could, if it makes more sense, propose this
               project
                          under "Technology". But since this is tied
               closely to GEF,
                          a tools project (IMHO) seems appropriate.

                          cheers,
                          ian


                          On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Doug Schaefer
                          <_cdtdoug@gmail.com_

               <mailto:_cdtdoug@gmail.com_ <mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>>>

               wrote:
                                On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Wayne Beaton
                                <_wayne@eclipse.org_

               <mailto:_wayne@eclipse.org_ <mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>

               wrote:
                                Another benefit is that you can have a
               lower bar for
                                committers on the incubator. You can use the
                                incubator to grow folks into committer-worthy
                                status. Just a thought

                                The bar is as high as the existing
               committers set
                                it. ;). I'm still hoping for the "Eclipse
               Labs"
                                concept to develop so we can create such
               sandboxes
                                there.

                                Wayne

                                Doug Schaefer wrote:

                                      BTW, the only benefit would be
               parallel IP.
                                      You can do those other things
               without the
                                      hassle of creating and managing a
               second
                                      project. And even parallel IP could
               be handled
                                      by storing the initial code off
               site. Until
                                      it's ready for the review.

                                      Of course, if you want to do it,
               I'm fine with
                                      that. It just a pet peave of mine.

                                      On Feb 3, 2010 8:56 AM, "Ian Bull"
                                      <_irbull@eclipsesource.com_
                                      <
    mailto:_irbull@eclipsesource.com_
               <mailto:
    irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
                                      <mailto:_irbull@eclipsesource.com_


                                      <
    mailto:_irbull@eclipsesource.com_
               <mailto:
    irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:

                                      I don't know, that's a good question. I
                                      thought that incubators provided a
               number of
                                      advantages for new projects and new
               ideas,
                                      such as:

                                      * Parallel IP
                                      * Pre 1.0 (wrt to API)
                                      * A clear indication to early
               adopters of what
                                      to expect

                                      I don't have a problem with
               creating this work
                                      as a sub component of GEF, although
               some of
                                      this work is clearly "incubation"
               style work
                                      (new ideas with undefined API that will
                                      hopefully graduate -- but that will
               depend on
                                      the quality and demand of the work
               being done).

                                      Anthony, as the GEF lead, what do
               you tihnk?

                                      cheers,
                                      ian

                                      On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM,
               Doug Schaefer
                                      <_cdtdoug@gmail.com_
                                      <
    mailto:_cdtdoug@gmail.com_
               <mailto:
    cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>>
                                      <mailto:_cdtdoug@gmail.com_


                                      <
    mailto:_cdtdoug@gmail.com_
               <mailto:
    cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote: > > I am
                                      on the record a...


                                                _______________________________________________
                                      tools-pmc mailing list_
                                      __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
                                      <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
                                      <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_

                                      <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>
                                      _
                                                ___
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc__

                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                _______________________________________________
                                      tools-pmc mailing list_
                                      __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_

                                      <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>_
                                                ___
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc__


                                --                  Wayne Beaton, The
               Eclipse Foundation_
                                __http://www.eclipse.org_
               <_
    http://www.eclipse.org/_>


                                I'm going to EclipseCon!_
                                __http://www.eclipsecon.org_
                                <_
    http://www.eclipsecon.org/_>


                                          _______________________________________________
                                tools-pmc mailing list_
                                __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>_

                                          ___
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc__


                                          _______________________________________________
                                tools-pmc mailing list_
                                __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>_
                                          ___
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc__




                          --            R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource
               Victoria | +1 250 477 7484_
                          __http://eclipsesource.com_
               <_
    http://eclipsesource.com/_> |

                          __
    http://twitter.com/eclipsesource__

                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          _______________________________________________
                          tools-pmc mailing list
                          _tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <
    mailto:_tools-pmc@eclipse.org_
               <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
                                    __
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc__

                           
               --            Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
               _http://www.eclipse.org_ <_
    http://www.eclipse.org/_>


               I'm going to EclipseCon!
               _http://www.eclipsecon.org_ <_
    http://www.eclipsecon.org/_>

               _______________________________________________
               tools-pmc mailing list_
               __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_ <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>_
               __
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_


               ------------------------------------------------------------------------

               _______________________________________________
               tools-pmc mailing list_
               __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_ <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>_
               __
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_
                       --      Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation_
         __http://www.eclipse.org_ <
    http://www.eclipse.org/>

         I'm going to EclipseCon!_
         __http://www.eclipsecon.org_ <
    http://www.eclipsecon.org/>

         _______________________________________________
         tools-pmc mailing list_
         __tools-pmc@eclipse.org_ <mailto:
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>_
         __
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_

    _______________________________________________
    tools-pmc mailing list

    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    tools-pmc mailing list

    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
     


    --
    Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation

    http://www.eclipse.org

    I'm going to EclipseCon!

    http://www.eclipsecon.org

    _______________________________________________
    tools-pmc mailing list

    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc



--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484

http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc

GIF image


Back to the top