[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [rt-pmc] Re: Swordfish review slides
|
Title: Re: [rt-pmc] Re: Swordfish review slides
Ricco,
One
item that jumped out at me in the slides was the bug summary. Given the
complexity of a SOA runtime I was confused when I looked into the bug database.
There is a single component (core) and no target milestones. That combined with
the fact of your total 36 bugs 29 have been logged by Eclipse Foundation
employees.
Are
the project committers using the Eclipse bug database to track all open issues
and enhancements or are they using a secondary system as well. It seems odd to
me that you do not have more closed bug as you move towards a release and that
you do not have any targets to track when a bug was closed for a given
milestone/release.
Doug
Bjorn,
thank you very much for your comments
regarding the Swordfish release review docuware. The slides you’ve reviewed,
however, were not meant to be final — Oliver sent them to EMO as a draft on
Anne’s request, and we apologize if they haven’t been marked clearly as
such.
Nevertheless, we understand your points and we will come back to
you within the next 1-2 days.
Best regards,
Ricco
Am
03.03.09 01:16 schrieb "Bjorn Freeman-Benson" unter <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
RT PMC members,
The Swordfish project has sent in
some slides for a 1.0 release review. In reviewing these slides, I note the
following items which make me wonder how involved the PMC has been in
preparing this project. Specifically, two issues:
- The Larger Eclipse Community: the purpose
of these reviews is to explain the project and it's status to the larger
Eclipse community. The review is not just a checklist of hoops to jump
through. For example:
- Schedule: the purpose of listing the schedule is
to demonstrate to the larger community the project's ability to set a
schedule and to meet the schedule. Thus the schedule page in the
docuware needs to list the actual planned milestones and planned dates
and actual dates. Not just first and last milestones: all of them, with
details.
- Standards: the purpose of listing the standards
is to explain to the community what standards the project is
implementing and tracking. Thus the statement "strives to be standards
compliant" is not good enough.
- ...etc...
- Maturity for a 1.0 Release: it's hard for
me to see the project as ready for a 1.0 release given that:
- All the API is provisional. That could be ok
except that there's no plan for hardening the API and thus one wonders
whether proper care has been put into the API design. The purpose of
"provisional API" is not to allow projects to avoid spending the effort
to create good APIs - rather, the purpose is to allow an "almost
completed" API to be road tested with actual clients before be
finalized.
-
- The project only supports one messaging engine.
It's hard to claim that something is a framework if it doesn't have at
least two, preferably three uses/users.
- I also note that the PMC has not yet approved this
release. The PMC is supposed to approve releases before they are sent to
the EMO.
I'm inclined to say "no" to this release review
unless you all on the PMC can explain why I'm wrong here. Thanks.
-
Bjorn