Re: [rt-pmc] incubating projects

[Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxx>]

We would actually do the repo structure now.  Note that it would 
actually be something more like

/equinox
	/component1
	/component2
	/incubation
		/monitoring
		/aspects
		/next

Some fo these may have outstanding CQs.  I'm not sure.  At some point we 
have to do a creation/move review anyway.  It feels better to maintain 
the incubator status.

Jeff

DOUGLAS.CLARKE@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> +1 for moving the incubation work with Equinox.
>
> Would it not make more sense to organize your CVS/SVN at the time of the move to match the future nesting of projects but then just to have a single incubation component within Equinox.
>
> /equinox
> 	/component1
> 	/component2
> 	/incubation
> 		/platform	
> 		/equinox
> 		/pde
>
> Then in the future you simply 'promote' each of these areas which for now are simply folders in the incubation component to being incubating sub-projects of equinox. The only thing you would lose in the short term is bugzilla component organization for these (which could be a showstopper if each of these incubating projects has existing bugs).
>
> Doug
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:04 PM
> To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list
> Subject: [rt-pmc] incubating projects
>
>
> All,
>
> We are setting up to move the Equinox project to RT.  We curently have 
> an associated set of incubating work in the Eclipse/Eclipse 
> Incubator/Equinox component.  We would like to move that as well. There 
> are a couple questions.  First, we need to get approval from the two 
> PMCs (origin and destination).  So for RT, any objections to moving the 
> Equinox incubation work along with Equinox itself?
>
> Assuming that is good, next question
>
> Where should we put the Equinox incubator and incubators in general?  In 
> the Eclipse project we have one "Incubator" subproject with components 
> for platform, equinox, pde, ...  The Eclipse project is however much 
> more coherent than RT.  It is not clear to me that having one global RT 
> Incubator makes sense.  The other proposal is ot create an Equinox 
> Incubator project.  This is cleaner but may set a bad precedent (i.e., 
> we would end up with every main project and a corresponding incubator).
>
> On reviewing this it turns out that the new development process may 
> offer some answers.  The new process (to be reviewed by the board later 
> i nthe summer) allows for deep nesting of projects.  So in the future we 
> could have RT/Equinox/Incubator/... rather than RT/Equinox 
> Incubator/...  (note the missing / in the second example).
>
> Concretely then the proposal is to make RT/Equinox Incubator now (by 
> moving over the current work) and then when the new process kicks in, we 
> would just do a paper move to get the Equionx incubator under the 
> equinox project.
>
> I know that this is a lot of process administrivia but we want to start 
> RT off clean and keep it that way.  That means paying attention to these 
> kinds of details.  Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Jeff
> Please lset
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>