Re: [technology-pmc] [epp-dev] EPP Policy on committers and package main

["Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with your assessment. I would add that the Tools Charter needs a
rewrite at least as much as Technology. Adding frameworks to it might be the
obvious thing to do.

Personally, I would separate what you call releng into two different things.
Orbit and EPP are really Eclipse community process artifacts. Hudson, m2e,
JGit and the like are starting to form an interesting server-side ALM stack,
with tools. Mylyn is our current ALM TLP, but its charter specifically
excludes server-side as I recall.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Komissarchik [mailto:konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: November-08-11 3:52 PM
> To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Technology PMC'
> Subject: RE: [technology-pmc] [epp-dev] EPP Policy on committers and
> package maintainers?
> 
> Of course, Tools has ceased being an effective catch-all as soon as scope
of
> projects at Eclipse has expanded beyond tooling. Some of that has been
> worked around by creating additional top-level projects for work that
> wouldn't reasonably fit into Tools (Runtime, Modeling, etc.), but there
are
> other categories that don't have a home outside of Technology today...
> 
> 1. Releng... Orbit, EPP, m2e, hudson, etc.
> 2. Application Development Frameworks... Sapphire, Scout, etc.
> 
> There are more such categories, I am sure.
> 
> - Konstantin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike
> Milinkovich
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:20 PM
> To: 'Technology PMC'
> Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] [epp-dev] EPP Policy on committers and
> package maintainers?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > +1 on revising Technology Project charter. Given the diversity of
> > +projects
> > at Eclipse, there are many projects that do not fit into any of the
> existing top-
> > level projects. We either start creating a lot of top-level projects
> > or we
> treat
> > Technology Project as a catch-all for what doesn't fit into other
> top-level
> > projects.
> 
> Historically, the intent was always that both Technology and Tools were
> "catch-alls". Technology was for research and experimentation, and Tools
> was for product-ready but-doesn't-fit-anywhere-else.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>