I agree wrt extra work. We are getting pretty good at moving things
around (Tom and I are moving Equinox this week).
- (Jeff) Mechanically the move is sending in a provisioning request
with the details.
- (webmaster) As you say, Orbit has a pretty simple structure so it is
just a change of the top-level repo.
- (webmaster) The bug bucket moves in the hierarchy but otherwise
nothing in Bugzilla is affected.
- (webmaster) Newsgroups are currently hierarchical (e.g,
tools.orbit). In the case of Orbit we could change it to rt.orbit or
leave it the same. There is precedence for both. We have very little
traffic on the group so it would not be too disruptive to move.
- (webmaster) The download site would have to be copied over as well
- (David?) Build may need a bit of updating (certainly the map files)
- (Jeff) update the wiki and website to point to the new locations
- (team) update CVS connections
There might be a couple odds and ends but that should cover the bulk of
it.
Jeff
David M Williams wrote:
I'd be ok with a move. It does seem
sightly more conceptually more correct ... since one of the main
"contributions"
of Orbit is how to best use and fit in with the OSGi framework (so, I'm
thinking, it is aligned with Equinox, which I believe is moving to
Runtime
Project, right?).
But I'd hate to do too much extra
work
... just for mere :) conceptual correctness ... would we have to change
repositories? I'd guess so, technically speaking, though should be easy
to move since there's one high directory that could be moved as is.
Not sure ... what other "work"
there would be?
You are absolutely right from a structure and
process
point of view.
The motivation for the move is more of a positioning statement. People
looking to get components for use in building their application/runtime
seem to get a little confused when they find out that Orbit is a Tools
project. The suggested move would not change anything in how the
project itself operates. It would just position it differently.
Jeff
Christian W. Damus wrote:
> Hi, Jeff,
>
> Does Orbit really fit in *any* project? The processes in this
project
> are markedly different from all others. The whole point of Orbit
is
> that it doesn't contain code developed under the Eclipse banner.
If
> we're looking for a new home, I wonder whether it doesn't make
more
> sense to let Orbit fit outside of the top-level project structure,
or
> perhaps to be a TLP unto itself.
>
> Is that a move that we can consider?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
>
> On 28-Jul-08, at 4:52 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
>
>> Tools has always been a bit of a strange place for Orbit IMHO.
It
>> was either that or Technology at the time. I don't really
recall why
>> the decision was made but there you go. Now however we do
have an
>> attractive home... RT. The topic of moving Orbit to
RT came up the
>> other day and I took the todo to poll the Orbit community to
see
if
>> there were opinions either way. This is just to test the
water and
>> see what people think. Assuming there are some positive
signs, we
>> can have a real vote. The current and future PMCs of course
have to
>> agree to but that should not be an issue.
>>
>> Jeff
>> _______________________________________________
>> orbit-dev mailing list
>> orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
>
> --
> Christian W. Damus
> Senior Software Developer, Zeligsoft Inc.
> Component Lead, Eclipse MDT OCL and EMF-QTV
> E-mail: cdamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> orbit-dev mailing list
> orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
|
