Re: [nebula-dev] Future of Nebula

[Wim Jongman <wim.jongman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree. If the contribution is substantial then we should aim for a sub-project. If not then we could consider hosting it in the bin.

Anyone from the current widget owners that want to move in a separate repo? 

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Edwin Park <esp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So, I agree let's focus on revamping the widget catalog as a first step. Let me know if you need any help with this.

As for the project organization, I'm not going to push hard to change this if you're happy with it, I just wanted to point out the tradeoff that is being made there. Basically we are opting for ease of ingesting a widget into Nebula at the expense of effectively maintaining it. This is not so much of an issue if there is no real activity for the widget, but if you do, then your build status, issues, feedback, etc is all muddled together with everything and it is a problem to constantly disentangle what is relevant for your widget from everything else. This organization (or lack of) makes Nebula a pretty effective dumping ground for widgets, but I think gets in the way of managing active development. It's true that we do have different models now tho (NatTable as a subproject, everything else in Nebula itself), so I guess I'd just encourage other widgets to split into subprojects if they are encountering any of the pain I just mentioned.

Cheers,

Edwin

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Wim Jongman <wim.jongman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Hallvard,

Thanks for joining the discussion.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Hallvard Trætteberg <hal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

Sorry my comments are a bit late (Easter holiday/Spring break).

>From the consumer perspective, I agree that a table summarizing the purpose, features and state of widgets is important. I think a table with the following contents would be a good start:

- widget name
- one-liner describing purpose
- SWT support (yes/no)
- RWT/RAP support (yes/no)
- JFace requirement (yes/optional/no)
- CSS support, i.e. can be styled with CSS
- lead maintainer
- (separate) indication of maturity (e.g. alpha, beta, released, mature) and activity (e.g. inactive (dead?), stable (mainly bug-fixing), active (new features in development))
- links to example page, bugzilla, source repo, ...

Yes, there seems to be consensus about this. I will start this effort.

 

>From the maintainer perspective I think it is important to allow for several models, from simple widget in common repo and little or no overhead, to separate project with own repo, releases and site. This ensures a low threshold for contributing, while allowing more complex projects to manage on their own without burdening the Nebula lead.

I agree. This is more or less like we do it now. Edwin?

 

_______________________________________________
nebula-dev mailing list
nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev

_______________________________________________
nebula-dev mailing list
nebula-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev