Hi Ed,
We've the same situation as Hendrik, everything is independent
except Bugzilla (MDT.RMF). So I have the same question as
Hendrik:
Is
there anything we are required to do to make the restructuring
happen?
Thanks,
- Michael
On 25.06.2013 09:18, Ed Merks wrote:
Henrik,
I believe it makes sense to remove the MDT qualification from the
bugzilla components. I.e., this list would show all the remaining
projects as products with their simple names:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?classification=Modeling
Regards,
Ed
On 25/06/2013 9:12 AM, Henrik
Rentz-Reichert wrote:
Hi Wayne, Ed,
I have been following this restructuring project from the
beginning.
But I'm not quite sure to which extent our eTrice project is
affected.
We have an independent website [1].
We have an independent download site [2].
We have an independent news group [3].
We have an independent developer mailing list [4].
It's only that our bugzilla product is MDT.ETrice [5].
Is there anything we are required to do to make the
restructuring happen?
Regards,
Henrik
[1] http://eclipse.org/etrice/
[2] http://eclipse.org/etrice/download.php
[3] http://www.eclipse.org/forums/eclipse.etrice
[4] etrice-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
[5] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=MDT.Etrice
Am 25.06.2013 08:31, schrieb Ed
Merks:
Wayne,
Comments below.
On 25/06/2013 5:51 AM, Wayne
Beaton wrote:
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 see.
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.
Yes, some of these things are painful to move, affecting
scripts and such.
I've been encouraging projects that don't have
their own products in Bugzilla to request them.
Yes, bugzilla in particular is used directly by the community
and needs to be more sensibly organized.
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.
Yes, even those are things use within scripts and within query
links...
Many of the projects already have independent websites, but
some are blocked waiting for the Modeling website
infrastructure to be moved to Git/upgraded.
Yes, that's totally my fault. Reorganizing the whole website
is (will be) very time consuming...
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.
Yes, for the most part, I do expect projects to look after
themselves, with the overall modeling website infrastructure
being used as a front end for navigating and understand the
overall organization.
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.
Even with specialized,carefully designed websites, it would
still be nice to have the kind of uniformity provided by the
PMI....
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.
No, that's mostly my fault. I've not been setting a good
example...
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.
Yes, that true.
Is moving everything in one big review was just too
ambitious?
Perhaps, but in the end, everything needs to be done and it
requires a lot of work, and for many of us, it's hard to make
that the top priority with so many things calling for our
attention...
How long is too long?
I suppose you decide that in the end.
Is it time to back out of the review and maybe attempt to do
this in smaller pieces?
Certainly we need to make incremental steps.
Do we really want/need to remove all of the container
projects?
Yes, they're a point of confusion, and the need for
controlling the committers on them, when they don't host any
source code has proven to be a pita...
What are you going to do about the website?
I think I've mentioned to you before that one significant
concern I have is migrating this stuff to git and then ending
up with all the current mess in the history such that cloning
the old big miss will forever be a headache. You mentioned we
could rewrite the history when we're done.
If this restructuring is to continue, it needs to be driven
by the PMC. My role has to change to one of providing
support.
Perhaps you and I could schedule a call to discuss some of the
initial details and we could follow that with a call of the
PMC and any interested project leads to discuss and overall
strategy. Certainly I have more time with Kepler out and the
next release far in the future to take steps now to get the
ball rolling.
Thanks for your flexibility, assistance, and patience!
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
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
|