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

[Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>]

Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > My perception is that Buckminster and Kepler has a large overlap and
> > that we both would benefit largely by working together on this. Either
> > we extend the cspec or we create a separate model that is complementary
> > to it. The extension/complement should not contain the elements already
> > covered by the cspec (dependency information, version ranges, etc.). It
> > should focus on how to incorporate forums, mailing-lists, newsgroups,
> > chat-rooms, web sites, bugzillas, project members, and member roles.
> > Such an extension could of course be created as a separate project but
> > I'm not sure I see the benefits of doing so.
>
> I think you are describing what we are trying to do ;) create a
> complimentary model that holds the community info.

If that's what I'm doing, then all is well. My concern is that you 
reinvent a lot of our technology. We already have model adapters for all 
of the  artifacts that you mention (with the exception of p2 since the 
API's for that model haven't been fixed yet) and the model you suggest 
has a huge overlap with our CSpec. I would not call it complementary in 
its current shape.

A model complementary to the cspec would deal exclusively with the 
community aspect and either extend or reference what it contains today.


> Some of the benefits of starting as separate project (look, I'm not
> saying having it always separate) are:
>
> - we have a space to organize ourselves and put our ideas
> - we don't hold Buckminster development as Buckminster tries to be
> stable and we introduce new ideas
> - we don't change the cspec as we go through this starting process
If your requirements have an impact on our current model, then I think 
it would be an advantage to catch this early. Our cspec is fairly stable 
today and our obligation to be backward compatible is increasing. Soon 
we will make an attempt to bring Buckminster out of incubation.

Given the modular and normalized structure of Buckminster, I'm not at 
all afraid that your additions would have a negative impact on our 
development. Rather the opposite. Your knowledge in the domain would be 
of great value to us. Not only in the community domain but for 
Buckminster as a whole.

I'd like for us to continue the Maven integration. Make it include all 
community info that Maven uses and to make Buckminster actions call on 
Maven goals. I would also like discuss integration with continuous build 
systems, how our model could be used in repositories remote to Eclipse, etc.

Kind Regards,
Thomas Hallgren