Hi Greg, all –
I’ve worked with Teo on the contribution and I think we’re on a good path with it;
Instead of API, he uses a Java System Property now to enable the special feature he needs, and the size of the contribution is much smaller now.
There’s still some minor wrinkles to iron out, but I’ve got confirmation from the Eclipse Foundation that “bugfix” contributions can still be accepted for Mars
even after the IP Log Submission. Which makes sense since the SR’s typically don’t need an IP Log either. So I think you can proceed submitting the IP Log as you see fit.
I’d appreciate input from Max / Rob on the contribution since they are probably the main users of RSE with SSH at this time and had indicated interest maintaining
RSE with Mars … so here’s your chance to speak up if you want.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools,
Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From: Greg Watson [mailto:g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:58 PM
To: Oberhuber, Martin
Cc: TM project developer discussions; teodor.madan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rob Stryker (rob.stryker@xxxxxxxxx); manderse@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Heads Up: API Addition for RSE contributed through https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/48427/1
I think the patch is fine without the API change, and I’m happy to hold off on the log until Tuesday (Monday is Memorial Day here). The API change is going to cause a lot of work, so unless someone signs up for
that, I don’t think its feasible.
Since our company doesn’t use RSE anymore at all, I also cannot invest much time in this.
I also agree with your concerns on the API addition.
But Teo is very responsive, and the risk of the change is small since it’s only enabled when the extra property is set.
Could you perhaps hold off on the IP log submission a little bit.
In case Teo manages getting away without API change, there might be a chance getting this in.
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner –
Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
I would say this is very problematic. An API addition will require a minor version increment to RSE and all the features. It should also be announced and have time for downstream adopters to comment or identify
issues, particularly since RSE is in maintenance mode for this release. The contributors would also need to be included in the IP log which I will be submitting this morning, so you’ll need to consult with Eclipse Legal on how to deal with this after the log
has been submitted. I don’t have any time to address any release engineering issues, so the change should also include everything that needs to happen in that respect. Someone will also need to evaluate, test, and approve the changes.
Are you or one of the other committers willing to take all this on?
The API addition makes sense to me but it comes VERY late in the game, thus would appreciate Greg’s opinion as the project lead.
I’m also not sure if the API addition is strictly necessary, perhaps Teo can get around without it.
Or we take the other route and decide that getting and setting properties is so fundamental that it’s added as new API to IService .
IService is marked @noimplement so adding new methods would be API compatible, then any RSE Service can transfer properties to and from the connector
service.
I’ve also added Max and Rob to this message (although they are not committers) since they recently indicated interest in RSE and possibly maintaining
it.
Please let me know what you think !
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner –
Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
|
