[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Hi, Jeff,
Good point about the significance of a TLP. Shows you how often *I*
have gone through that process ;-)
Maybe I'm getting hung up on the fact that Orbit seems, to me, more
"special" than the rest in some way. I certainly have no more
objection to homing it in RT than in Tools, just hoping maybe to
expand the debate a little.
Too bad about the "incubation" stigma on the Technology project. The
constituents in Orbit are, well, "technology" after all. ;-)
I guess I'm a +0 vote, if we're voting.
Cheers,
Christian
On 29-Jul-08, at 1:46 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
In any event, I don't think a TLP is right here. TLPs tend to
gather together other projects and form some coherent whole.
Currently, at least from the outside having Orbit in Tools does not
appear coherent. (put it in perspective, it is not tragic or
anything. This is more of a tweak than a fix to a problem).
Christian W. Damus wrote:
So, why would we not do the correct thing, then? Structure and
process are very important at Eclipse. I would like to hear
Bjorn's view on this.
Can you ping him on that? Not sure he reads this list actively.
It seems to me that the effort required to become a TLP will be the
same as to move to RT, mostly the kind of review required would be
different (project promotion instead of project move).
The effort ot make a TLP is FAR greater. You have to have a formal
charter, get board approval, etc etc. Putting together the RT TLP
was a lot of work. It took quite some time and discussion across a
very broad range of people to make that happen.
If we're to move, I would rather see the 3rd-party code become more
isolated from the Eclipse-developed code with its own PMC. A TLP
is well positioned to leave no confusion about third-party code
being managed by some project.
Not sure what confusion there is now. The positioning of Orbit as a
TLP or otherwise does not affect the IP process in any way.
Or, maybe the Technology project is a good home after all, with all
of the "incubation" work that is also in an IP grey area of a
different shade?
From an IP perspective Orbit is no any different. It happens that
some of the workflows are optimized because Orbit has a very high
volume of thirdparty use and project reuse but other than that the
IP policy itself is mute on Orbit. Technology was an original
suggestion but if I recall correctly, it was thought that the
"incubation" label/cast was to be avoided since the things in Orbit
are in general real and released etc.
Jeff
Cheers,
Christian
On 29-Jul-08, at 10:28 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
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
--
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
--
Christian W. Damus
Senior Software Developer, Zeligsoft Inc.
Component Lead, Eclipse MDT OCL and EMF-QTV
E-mail: cdamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx