[news.eclipse.technology.kepler] Re: Kepler and Buckminster

[Carlos Sanchez <carlos.sanchez@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nothing to say here, we completely agree

Oisin Hurley wrote:
> Thomas, your posting is well thought out, and you make a good point
> about the establishment of a common model. However, I think that the
> model of the component world (nice phrase :) is only part of the
> story.
> 
> Kepler is certainly about community metadata, but it should also
> be about integrating with the tool frontends to present the
> community model to, well, the community. So in that way Kepler
> has a lot to explore either in greenfield development and in
> integration with projects like Mylyn and BIRT. Buckminster isn't
> so much about that.
> 
> I also think that Kepler needs to be given the space to engage
> with the Eclipse ecosystem as a community in its own right. The
> initial committers and contributors need to get into our wider
> community and prove themselves as able developers and community
> managers, learn The Eclipse Way, and bring their knowledge to
> the table. I think this is vitally important - Buckminster is
> mature in the sense that it has gone through releases and is
> familiar with Eclipse processes. These guys need to learn that,
> and they need to learn it themselves (with some nudging from
> mentors of course ;) -- merging with Buckminster at the outset
> will not help that, as I think that it will detract from the
> pride and pressure that comes with being a project at the
> outset.
> 
> So to summarize: the component model creation part of Kepler
> complements the Buckminster component model, but there are other
> parts of Kepler that need attention too. It's my opinion that
> Kepler should start as a project, set out it's stall, and as
> a priority action item, develop a plan for interaction and
> integration with the Buckminster project.
> 
>  cheers
>   --oh
>