[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[rt-pmc] RE: SMILA check-in at Eclipse
|
Hi Wayne, hi Barb, hi Jeff, hi Jochen
Thank you Wayne for your time and your answer. Please have a look at Waynes mail.
@Jeff and Jochen: Do we have your OK to proceed with check-in for our code. I need this for our project partners at Theseus and for internal reasons (I must soon prepare a commercial distribution and get in a feature race there). Open and Eclipse based interfaces will help us on those two points. Our code may be uncompileable due to some unfinished CQs. The code we would like to check-in has passed CQ process and is accepted as ready for check-in.
We already invested a man year work in the IP process and if I change focus of some members of the team some of these investments may be lost or at least get at risk.
Further I somehow need a way to communicate to our project partners at Theseus. And code is a great opportunity to do those communication.
We have the SMILA project advertised as a base technology for a government project called Theseus http://theseus-programm.de/ (members e.g. SAP, DFKI, Fraunhofer, Siemens, Empolis, The national library...). Within this project SMILA will be used as platform for a SME contest on knowledge management.
@Barb:
For the build process.
Which real blockers do we have? When we avoid adding any build scripts to Eclipse repositories. I think in such a case we would not violate any IP point if doing a check-in based on #1. We could describe a build by documentation (and optionally link to an external build script). There would not be a violation from my point of view, because there is no relationship to Eclipse. Eclipse just provides some bundles. These bundles are incomplete. We would just have a documentation in the WIKI and some parts at our servers.
As far as I understood from Sebastin, there are projects that are using LGPL libraries. These libraries are available at external servers. I would generally compare such a case to our situation.
ODE has four rejected libraries (1x Jaxen and 3x Saxen). These libs are samples for required dependencies of an extreme vital component. The Berkeley DB (currently in IP process) is another vital component. Can we somehow get an arrangement similar to the project that is hosting these LGPL licenses externally? What would we have to do? Currently I have started a discussion with the ODE team about getting an option to get jaxen or saxen as optional component running in their system (BTW: ODE is also important for Swordfish). So we do something on this part.
But how can we go on moving? I somehow need to be able to proceed.
Kind Regards,
Georg
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Beaton [mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2008 22:00
To: Barb Cochrane
Cc: Sebastian Voigt; jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Jeff McAffer'; Thomas Menzel; August Georg Schmidt
Subject: Re: SMILA check-in at Eclipse
I apologise if I'm taking a step back here, but I only got involved
yesterday and am trying to understand what's happening. As I understand
it, there are three questions:
--
1. The SMILA project has several CQs working their way through the IP DD
process. Some of these CQs have been approved for check-in based on the
parallel IP process. Some of these approved CQs have dependencies on
code in other CQs that have not yet been approved. Can the code attached
to the approved CQs be checked-in amounting to what is an invalid
intermediate state?
2. While the project is waiting for the IP process to work its magic on
the remaining CQs, developers and adopters need to be able to access,
build, and use the code. Can the SMILA create a automated script that
can gather the not-yet-approved bits, assemble them on their local
workstation, and build them into a usable form? All of the bits in
question currently have pending CQs in the system. None of the
not-yet-approved bits will be uploaded to any Eclipse server. I believe
that this, again, represents and invalid intermediate state and that the
SMILA project is operating in good faith.
3. If an automated script (e.g. Ant-based) is not appropriate, can they
provide a textual script that describes what needs to be done to get the
code into a usable state? Such a script could be heavily annotated with
warnings that the code in question is working its way through the IP DD
process and has not yet been approved.
--
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
My opinion is that the answer to question one is "yes". From the IP
team's point of view, the answer is "yes". However, I believe that it is
the opinion of the RT PMC that really matters. I recommend that you pose
this question directly to the RT PMC and get their approval.
I believe that the answer to the second question is "no". Further, from
an IP point-of-view, there is no difference between questions two and
three; so I believe the answer to question three is "no". The only way
that I can possibly see the answer changing to "yes" is if these
dependencies can be declared as "exempt pre-reqs" as defined by the
"Guidelines for the Review of Third Party Dependencies" [1]. However, I
don't believe that the dependencies in question satisfy the conditions
and doubt very much that the EMO will approve.
The bottom line is that I think you're currently stuck with a project
bootstrapping problem that won't go away until the CQ log-jam is cleared.
Wayne
[1]
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf.
Barb Cochrane wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
>
>
> I'm introducing your mentor, Wayne, into this loop. Wayne and I will be
> meeting later today. One of our objectives will be to provide some answers
> to this email before our day end over here.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Barb
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:10 PM
> To: Sebastian Voigt
> Cc: Barb Cochrane; jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: SMILA check-in at Eclipse
>
>
>
> Sebastian,
>
> These are good questions. Getting started with a large code base is always
> hard. One of the key questions that is worth getting an answer to (Barb!)
> is
> - does the code requiring a third party lib have to wait until that lib
> is reviewed and approved before being checked in?
>
> that is assume org.eclipse.smila.foo requires X (some third party lib being
> reviewed). It makes sense that foo cannot be "released" (or perhaps
> delivered as a build") until X is reviewed/approved. But can X be checked
> into the repo? Since it is not really being presented as a deliverable but
> rather a work in progress, the fact that at this point in time you need to
> get X to continue development should not represent a significant risk to the
> foundation. This only gets you so far but it does allow you to get the code
> into the repo and build some community around it. A good step forward.
>
> I don't think that the PMC would/should approve a works with if the only
> reasonable configuration requires the library in question. This is not a
> matter of technicalities but more one of intent.
>
> BTW, your project mentors should be able to help with some of these
> questions.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sebastian Voigt wrote:
>
> Hi Barb,
>
>
>
> We have discussed in more detail our current situation, and we have 3
> specific questions:
>
>
>
> We have reviewed your last answer, and we know that some 3rd Party bundles
> (aka Plugins, OSGI-Container / Jar) that are waiting for CQ
> approval/checktocvs
>
> are from the class "non-exempt pre-req" because we need to use some in our
> main distribution (they are necessary).
>
>
> Our main goal at the moment is to prepare the check-in because we want to
> reach the status where people can checkout from svn, build &run.
> At the moment this distribution would miss some bundles because they have
> no cq approval. Is it somehow possible
>
> that people can download these bundles somewhere from the internet? It would
> be possible of course to add some
> download mechanism into the build script. We have read the guidelines and
> know that "non-exempt pre-req" bundles
> must always go through the IP review process and have to be approved,
>
> but we want to know if it makes a difference for the IP-Review when we
> prepare a download from our Company Site
> for Bundles that haven't approved until now, maybe that's the way we can
> work until they are approved or not.
>
>
>
> E.g. we can provide a download for bundles that are still reviewed by EMO
> and the build script will download them.
> Will this have any influence to the running CQ? Can we use this workflow
> until we know if the CQ was approved or not?
> Maybe is there a difference also for automatically (from the build-script)
> or manually ( we would describe where the bundles can be downloaded)
> downloads?
>
>
> An alternative regarding the Guidelines would be to implement some
> stubs(placeholder, dummy code) for these bundles that would
> only implement basic functionality. We can upload (of course after CQ
> approval) these bundles instead of the Berkeley / ODE
> (the bundles we are waiting for approval), then we can declare the
> ODE/Berkeley bundles as "workswith".
>
>
>
> This workflow has several disadvantages, we have to generate the stubs, and
> the checkout from the eclipse would not really work,
> it would be only a copout. Thus we would prefer to prepare downloads for
> the running CQs, that can be (automatically/manually)
> attached to SMILA-Eclipse-Built.
>
>
>
> But would a pmc approve bundles with ODE/Berkeley as "workswith" generally?
>
>
> Maybe you understand that we don't know how we should proceed, because we
> want
> to deliver a full functional access to our project but we have to wait for
> cq's...
>
>
>
>
>
> Second Question is how we should/can proceed with the check-in in generally.
> Regarding the Parallel IP-Process (I think) we need
> to commit for every cq separately the sources of the bundle, but the
> question is can we check in a bundle already, while it has dependencies on
> bundles
> that are still under review?
>
> Should we really check-in bundles that have dependencies to other bundles
> that are still in review by emo (waiting for approval/check-in state)?
>
>
>
> All CQs for rt.smila are at the moment for bundles that are in the category
> "3rd-party"
> (maybe see an Overview of usage of 3rd-Party Bundles:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/SMILA/Workflow_Overview).
> We haven't created CQs for our own source code at the moment, because we
> don't know how to proceed (see above).
> Should we all tag these CQ of the 3rd party) with the information "exempt
> pre-req", or is this information obsolete for you. How can we add this
> information?
>
>
>
> Thanks for answering
>
>
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>
> Sebastian Voigt
>
> brox IT-Solutions GmbH
> An der Breiten Wiese 9
> 30625 HANNOVER (Germany)
> Tel: +49 (5 11) 33 65 28 - 73
> eFax: +49 (5 11) 33 65 28 - 98 73
> Fax: +49 (5 11) 33 65 28 - 29
> Mail: <mailto:tmenzel@xxxxxxx> svoigt@xxxxxxx
> Web: <http://www.brox.de/> www.brox.de
>
> ==================================
> According to Section 80 of the German Corporation Act brox IT-Solutions GmbH
> must indicate the following information.
> Address: An der Breiten Wiese 9, 30625 Hannover Germany
> General Manager: Hans-Chr. Brockmann
> Registered Office: Hannover, Commercial Register Hannover HRB 59240
> ========== Legal Disclaimer ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Barb Cochrane [mailto:barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:56 PM
> To: 'Jeff McAffer'; jkrause@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Sebastian Voigt
> Subject: FW: SMILA check-in at Eclipse
>
>
>
> Jeff, Jochen,
>
>
>
> Forgot to copy you on my response to the SMILA project's questions re third
> party dependencies.....apologies!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Barb
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Barb Cochrane [mailto:barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: 'Sebastian Voigt'
> Subject: RE: SMILA check-in at Eclipse
>
>
>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
>
>
> Before creating such dependencies on optional third party software, your PMC
> will have to consult the Guidelines for Third Party Dependencies
> <http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_P
> arty_Dependencies_Final.pdf> for each piece of third party software that
> SMILA is proposing to be downloaded from another site.
>
>
>
> Then, for each piece of third party software that PMC approves the use of
> under those guidelines, SMILA will have to enter a CQ and clearly identify
> whether the third party software in question is a "workswith" or an "exempt
> pre-req". If PMC votes +1, then
>
> those that PMC has identified as "workswith" are approved as optional
> components under the guidelines; and
>
> those that PMC has identified as "exempt pre-req" require EMO approval as
> well, and only after EMO are these components approved as optional
> components under the guidelines.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Barb
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Sebastian Voigt [mailto:svoigt@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:24 AM
> To: Barb Cochrane
> Subject: FW: SMILA check-in at Eclipse
>
>
>
> Dear Barb Cochrane,
>
> we at smila are preparing for checking into svn, You know there are some
> bundles that are not allowed to check-in,
>
> therefore we are searching for a solution to forward our code to eclipse,
> and make some bundles "optional", that means
>
> they have to be loaded from another site in the internet.
>
> Please see below the post from George. Are there some restrictions for the
> automatically download before building/compiling?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>
> Sebastian Voigt
>
> brox IT-Solutions GmbH
> An der Breiten Wiese 9
> 30625 HANNOVER (Germany)
> Tel: +49 (5 11) 33 65 28 - 73
> eFax: +49 (5 11) 33 65 28 - 98 73
> Fax: +49 (5 11) 33 65 28 - 29
> Mail: <mailto:tmenzel@xxxxxxx> svoigt@xxxxxxx
> Web: <http://www.brox.de/> www.brox.de
>
> ==================================
> According to Section 80 of the German Corporation Act brox IT-Solutions GmbH
> must indicate the following information.
> Address: An der Breiten Wiese 9, 30625 Hannover Germany
> General Manager: Hans-Chr. Brockmann
> Registered Office: Hannover, Commercial Register Hannover HRB 59240
> ========== Legal Disclaimer ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: smila-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:smila-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of August Georg Schmidt
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:14 PM
> To: Smila project developer mailing list
> Subject: [smila-dev] SMILA check-in at Eclipse
>
>
>
> Hallo Jochen, Hi Jeff,
>
>
>
> we would like to prepare our check-in at Eclipse. Since not all components
> are yet accepted at IP process we would like to find out whether its
> possible for us to create a partitial version at eclipse that is not
> compilable.
>
>
>
> We currently see two ways for providing such a version.
>
>
>
> Create a Tutorial for a build including an external download site for manual
> components for download
>
> Create a ANT script that will do a complete compile including such an
> download.
>
>
>
> Would such options be possible? Are there specific restrictions that we have
> to keep in mind (e.g. IP process requirements)?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> Georg
>
>
>
>
>
