[
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 From Shigeki
Thu, 28 May 2009 19:03:51 -0400
"CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874" <ericc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +1 from Eric C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] pending RTSC CQ's: [CQ 3269] and [CQ 3270]
>
> Thanks for the careful review Martin.
>
> +1 from Doug G.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: DSDP PMC list
> Subject: 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Shigeki Moride
moride.shigeki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
moride@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
