[news.eclipse.technology.kepler] Re: Proposed Kepler project plan on wik

[Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Folks,

I've made a stab at updating the draft project plan in response to 
Henrik, Pascal, and Thomas's feedback:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Kepler_Project_Plan

Please keep the comments/changes coming.  Also feel free to put comments 
inline (via wiki) in the project plan if you wish.

I put some comment markup here:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Kepler_Project_Plan#Kepler_Integration_Strategy

This markup is so that we can easily distinguish comments from the plan 
items themselves.  Please just use the markup (with appropriate changes 
and your name) to add comments.

Thanks,

Scott

Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Scott Lewis wrote:
> > Yes.  Kepler will absolutely not plan (or do) a rewrite of technology 
> > already in Eclipse projects.  The draft doesn't state this and so 
> > creates a wrong impression.
> This is good to know. I think it would be beneficial if the draft did 
> change its wording in some places in order to avoid misunderstandings. 
> It's important to discuss how things are supposed to work, where 
> functionality is best implemented and by who.
>
> As an example, in Milestone 2 where it says that Headless Eclipse-Plugin 
> and OSGi Builds are orchestrated by a Maven plugin from Codehaus it 
> should mention other technologies too. The fact that existing Eclipse 
> Technology Projects already covers the functionality is important and 
> must not be omitted.
>
> I think it would be great if we could increase the communication between 
> Kepler and the technology projects that already do implement a lot of 
> the functionality that the Kepler proposal is covering. Buckminster 
> covers a lot of the build management functionality. Corona already have 
> functional solutions for lot of the community issues, etc. We need to 
> investigate the feasibility of using them and increase the knowledge 
> transfer between the projects. In my opinion that should have priority.
>
> That said, I'm not at all against using external technology if 
> discussions around functionality leads us to believe that it would be 
> beneficial. We just need to have those discussions first and perhaps do 
> some research within Eclipse prior to making suggestions indicating what 
> way to go.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren