Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2

[Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:55:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
> 
> > The real problem is "the platform team" vanishes :((. Unless the
> > broad community steps in to strengthen it we are done.
> 
> The platform team isn't going to vanish unless Eclipse vanishes.

Eclipse can still be here for some time with no platform team. We see it with pde.build already - it's here, it's shipped, it's long way from good enough and there are no active contributors.

> There may
> not be demand for a large group of platform contributors because the
> foundation is good enough and now it's time to build the chimney.

I beg to differ here - platform(incl. swt, p2, etc.) is so long way from "good enough" state that 
I can't even consider this statement seriously.


Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team



> 
> To try to get back on topic... The Planning Council is responsible
> for
> establishing the simultaneous release and resolving cross-project
> issues
> that arise. The topic of whether Juno should be 3.8 or 4.2 based (or
> both)
> was on the agenda for many meetings last year. Perhaps this should be
> on the
> agenda again for the next meeting?
> 
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council
> 
> - Konstantin
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Aleksandar Kurtakov
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:17 AM
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik"
> > <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:13:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
> > 
> > > "The one that does the job decides!"
> > 
> > Indeed, but the rest of that quote is "and accepts consequences for
> > those decisions".
> > 
> > I do not believe that the broad community is disinterested in
> > helping
> > 4.x in reaching maturity. This thread and others like it are simply
> > a
> > call to slow down and to do this more safely. It would not be wise
> > for
> > the platform team to disregard these calls.
> 
> The real problem is "the platform team" vanishes :((. Unless the
> broad
> community steps in to strengthen it we are done.
> 
> Alexander Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse team
> 
> > 
> > - Konstantin
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > Aleksandar Kurtakov
> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:02 AM
> > To: Cross project issues
> > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Stephan Herrmann" <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:40:02 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus
> > > 4.2
> > > 
> > > On 09/06/2012 08:23 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> > > > Introducing a new platform undoubtedly consumes a lot of
> > > > resources.
> > > > Doing that anyway (and as the only viable alternative), well
> > > > aware
> > > > that those resources were scarce and that the new platform had
> > > > inferior performance, and then blame the community for not
> > > > helping, that doesn't fly well with me.
> > > 
> > > Maybe the problem is, "the community" isn't quite as homogeneous
> > > as
> > > we keep thinking. 3.8 vs. 4.2 is a conflict of interests between
> > > different groups of people.
> > > 
> > > If you are part of the group that only sees regressions not a
> > > single
> > > improvement in 4.2, it's difficult to get motivated helping those
> > > other guys getting their baby up to speed. Of course those who
> > > greatly benefit from the new architecture don't want to get
> > > slowed
> > > down by "legacy" decisions.
> > > 
> > > Lets call one group the IDE nerds and the other group the e4-RCP
> > > folks.
> > > As a thought experiment: are the e4-RCP folks strong enough in
> > > resources to make 4.3 a replacement that will not get into faces
> > > of
> > > the IDE nerds?
> > 
> > What about e4-RCP folks outnumber the IDE nerds significantly
> > (amongst
> > active contributors) so it's there call.
> > "The one that does the job decides!"
> > 
> > Alexander Kurtakov
> > Red Hat Eclipse team
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I don't know the answer, but I feel the answer differs depending
> > > on
> > > whether you focus on functionality, bugs, performance or
> > > usability.
> > > 
> > > Yes, we are still one community, and I'm not advocating fences
> > > and
> > > boundaries, but helping each other seems to work best when cost
> > > and
> > > benefits are equally balanced in all regions of this community.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 09/06/2012 07:06 AM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
> > >  > But more importantly than all this is the meta conclusion that
> > >  >  >
> > > the
> > > > era of being able to take the platform for granted is over and
> > > >  >
> > > that  > we are all going to have to pay more attention to it,
> > > roll
> > > up our  > sleeves and contribute.
> > > 
> > > I'd like to second this. No part of the entire ecosystem can be
> > > taken for granted, not the platform, not jdt, not p2, nor the
> > > team
> > > providers.
> > > All components need continued care and everybody needs help (no
> > > sarcasm intended, in case anyone wonders).
> > > 
> > > cheers,
> > > Stephan
> > > 
> > > PS: Great to see efforts to bring performance tests back! Thanks!
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> > > cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> > cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> > cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>