[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-pmc] pending RTSC CQ's: [CQ 3269] and [CQ 3270]
|
+1 for Rhino 1.6R6 -- Piggyback is a no-brainer :)
+1 for antlr 3.1.1 -- thanks to your communication with legal,
other teams have agreed to use 3.1.1 as well so legal review
of that lib will benefit multiple parties and having it in
RTSC will be an asset. Thanks for applying for runtime only
without the tools.
After having looked at the CQ's in a bit more detail I can
recommend other PMC's to vote +1 as well.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russo, David
> Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2009 21:39
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: [dsdp-pmc] pending RTSC CQ's: [CQ 3269] and [CQ 3270]
>
> Team,
>
> The RTSC project has two outstanding CQ's that require PMC
> approval (or not):
> 3269 Mozilla Rhino Version: 1.6R6 (PB CQ1694)
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3269
>
> 3270 antlr Version: 3.1.1
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3270
>
> The rhino dependency is a simple piggyback while the antlr is
> a minor update to existing antlr CQ's. Rhino provides the
> JavaScript interpreter used to run RTSC meta-domain modules
> and Antlr is used by RTSC to generate the IDL parser.
>
> The CQ's above are key to the RTSC project and are pending
> PMC approval. Please vote.
>
> Thanks,
>
> dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russo, David
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:22 AM
> To: 'DSDP PMC list'
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] [CQ 3272] java tar Version: 2.5
>
> Doug and team,
>
> The following CQs are outstanding:
> 3269 Mozilla Rhino Version: 1.6R6 (PB CQ1694)
> 3270 antlr Version: 3.1.1
> 3271 xmlbeans Version: 1.0.4
> 3272 java tar Version: 2.5
>
> The first two are, in my opinion, uncontroversial and I'd
> advocate a +1 for these.
>
> I'd appreciate the team's comments on the others. I've tried
> to fairly represent the issues below.
>
> 3271: xmlbeans 2.3 is already approved, but our tests with
> Rhino (which requires xmlbeans for its E4X support) work with
> 1.0.4 and break with 2.3. The RTSC team needs to spend time
> to determine the root cause and possibly work around the
> issue in our use of Rhino. My preference is to get 1.0.4
> approved to avoid destabilizing RTSC (it's likely a problem
> between Rhino and xmlbeans that the RTSC team may never fully
> understand), but I understand the community desire to
> piggyback on the already approved xmlbeans 2.3.
>
> 3272: Martin rightly pointed out that several other projects
> in eclipse already embed tar support. The "cleanest" appears
> to be the tar support in ant.jar, but this jar is 1.3M
> compared to 25K for java tar. java tar 2.5 is public domain,
> small, and sufficient for RTSC needs. Moreover, we are under
> considerable pressure to reduce XDCtools footprint. So, I
> see three options:
> 1. push for java tar to be approved;
> 2. subset ant.jar, taking only the tar support and any of it's
> prerequisites; or
> 3. copy tar support from other projects into RTSC.
>
> I strongly prefer to take pre-built solutions and hate
> cut-copy-paste coding, so #3 is a last resort. Even #2
> worries me from a maintenance point of view. Subseting
> someone else's distribution requires work that can easily be
> undone by a simple update of the original distribution and,
> as a rule, the RTSC team avoids doing this.
>
> On the other hand, this seems to be what other eclipse
> projects do. I see this being done with ANTLR (which
> surprised me) so perhaps I should do the same with ant? Is
> it common practice to subset other open-source distributions
> to create a custom set of jars within eclipse?
>
> Since java tar 2.5 is small, self-contained and we could
> reuse its binary distribution, I opted for #1 above.
>
> If you've read this far, I'd appreciate any comments or
> guidance you may have.
>
> dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:16 AM
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] [CQ 3272] java tar Version: 2.5
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Please send a summary email for all of your open CQ's that
> the PMC needs
> to vote on. We can vote on all of them and then reference the vote in
> the CQ's.
>
> Doug
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:15 PM
> To: dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [dsdp-pmc] [CQ 3272] java tar Version: 2.5
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3272
>
>
> Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----
> CC|
> |barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx
> AssignedTo|emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> |barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 2009-05-06 17:13:38 ---
> Hi David,
>
> This one is waiting for PMC vote on it as well.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Auto-Generated Text: IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.
>
>
> --
> Configure CQmail:
> http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the CQ.
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-pmc mailing list
> dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-pmc mailing list
> dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-pmc mailing list
> dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
>
