Hi Wayne and PMC members,
For the EEF project, I asked a move review with the next release.
I hope everything is good for this topic.
If this is the case, I suppose the EEF project will be included in
the next "Moves batch" right ?
Regards,
--
Goulwen Le Fur - goulwen.lefur@xxxxxxx
Le 25/06/2013 05:51, Wayne Beaton a écrit :
Hi Modeling PMC.
As you recall you initiated a Restructuring Review [1] late last
year that flattens the Modeling top-level project by removing the
mid-level "container" projects and terminated a large number of
inactive projects. I've captured the activity around this
restructuring in Bug 393862 [2].
Immediately following the review, I enumerated the required steps
and initiated the termination and archival of twenty projects. In
the months that followed, I have enumerated the required steps and
initiated some of the moves as outlined in the the review document
provided by the PMC.
As part of the Kepler reviews, I tried to get the Kepler
participants to engage in the moves initiated by the PMC. There
has been some push-back, but many of the projects have engaged in
the process. Many, however, have not.
I intend to remain very flexible in terms of the timing and the
natures of the moves. There are some corner cases, but most
projects don't need to move their downloads and source
repositories. I am in favour, for example, of phased migration of
download sites for projects that want to do that sort of thing.
I've been encouraging projects that don't have their own products
in Bugzilla to request them. For the most part, a lot of these
"moves" are little more than changes in the project's id (e.g.
"modeling.emf.cdo" becomes "modeling.cdo"). Still, even with just
an id change, there can be unanticipated side effects that we need
to be sensitive to.
Many of the projects already have independent websites, but some
are blocked waiting for the Modeling website infrastructure to be
moved to Git/upgraded. Rather than invest significant energy in
upgrading the Modeling website infrastructure, I recommend that
projects be encouraged to either create their own independent
websites, or leverage the PMI. We can set up as many redirects as
possible to make this happen. Reception of the PMI has been
generally good and I am very interested in extending it to cover
functionality that the modeling website infrastructure supports. I
need input to make that happen.
For those projects that have provided move information, the
Webmaster has asked that we present the moves in batches;
apparently, there's a bit of grove to moving projects and it's
easier to do them this way. There are a few projects that are
ready and waiting. I intend to pull the trigger sometime next week
(following the Kepler release).
While I really do intend to be flexible with regard to
implementing this restructuring, it makes no sense to leave it
open-ended. Some projects just don't care about the move and have
done nothing to assist with the process. At this point, I feel
some reflection is required.
Is moving everything in one big review was just too ambitious?
How long is too long?
Is it time to back out of the review and maybe attempt to do this
in smaller pieces?
Do we really want/need to remove all of the container projects?
What are you going to do about the website?
If this restructuring is to continue, it needs to be driven by the
PMC. My role has to change to one of providing support.
Thanks,
Wayne
[1]
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Modeling/project_termination_review_2012
[2]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=393682
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
|