Re: [tools-pmc] Requesting exception for patch feature shipped by Object

[Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>]

The issue at hand is whether the Tools PMC will bring this to the
planning council. I am not going to vote in favor of this motion
unless the JDT folk approve. If someone else on the PMC feels strongly
about it they can and I'll simply abstain.

I do know that if someone else was trying to patch the CDT on the
train without the CDT community's approval, I'd be steamed. I don't
think it's healthy for the greater Eclipse community to open that
precedent.

Doug.

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Here are my two cents:
>
> I'm fine with OT forking JDT as they have a use case for it. We should
> grant them an exemption for this time around with the EXPECTATION that
> they would work with the JDT to fix any issues by the next release
> (Stephan has even become a JDT committer which is great). This can
> serve as motivation for projects to fix issues as they wouldn't be
> allowed on the train next time around.
>
> In terms of p2, to ensure that no one installs the JDT "fork" by
> accident... we would explicitly hide the feature when we organize the
> content (this is relatively easy to do).
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm also curious as to what would happen if two people wanted to patch the
>> same project? Or, if I installed the OT (and thus the patched JDT came
>> along), and then JDT released a critical fix of their own? Would that patch
>> be applied?
>> cheers,
>> ian
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it's just too easy to get the patched version without users
>>> knowing about it. That's why I firmly believe the owners of the
>>> org.eclipse.jdt namespace need to approve any patches into that
>>> namespace that come on the train.
>>>
>>> Doug.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>> > My 2c.  We must be sure that when someone goes to the train repo and
>>> > says (directly or indirectly) "I want JDT", they get the unpatched JDT.  If
>>> > they choose (directly or indirectly) to install OT and OT needs a patch,
>>> > great, but they should not get it "for free".
>>> >
>>> > If there are bugs in p2/b3/... that prevent the above from being true
>>> > then they need to be fixed or the train repos must contain patches from the
>>> > JDT team (in this case) that they intend all users to have.
>>> >
>>> > Jeff
>>> > On 2010-11-16, at 2:34 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Dear Tools PMC,
>>> >> (Cc: our Mentors)
>>> >>
>>> >> Bug 330288 [1], which is actually a technical bug in the b3 aggregator
>>> >> has triggered a discussion in bug 330312 [2], which may or may not
>>> >> significantly influence the future of the Object Teams project.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've actively tried to trigger this discussion for a long time and I
>>> >> appreciate
>>> >> that it is happening now.
>>> >> However, if the rules proposed by Gunnar will be enforced in the near
>>> >> future, perhaps as a pre-requisiste for participating in the release
>>> >> train,
>>> >> this would potentially rule out our (Object Teams) participation in the
>>> >> train.
>>> >>
>>> >> Therefor, and in order to keep special case considerations out off that
>>> >> discussion, I precautionarily request an exception from those future
>>> >> rules.
>>> >> If relevant I will ask you (the Tools PMC) to forward this request to
>>> >> the
>>> >> Planning Council.
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe I have sufficient arguments for justifying this exception.
>>> >> Please let me know, where and how I should communicate these arguments.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for considering,
>>> >> Stephan
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=330288
>>> >>     Indigo repository does not include all the versions of jdt.core
>>> >>
>>> >> [2] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=330312
>>> >>     Rules for project patches in the train
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> tools-pmc mailing list
>>> >> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > tools-pmc mailing list
>>> > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tools-pmc mailing list
>>> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
>> http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tools-pmc mailing list
>> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Aniszczyk
> http://aniszczyk.org
> +1 860 839 2465
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>