Well, I think a certain amount of diligence
is needed once these tools are graduated and mature. The e4 rules were,
if you sent an e4-dev to request participation, commit rights were granted
immediately. That is cool for an incubator but I think a bit more care
is needed for mature tools. In any case the commit rights are granted whenever
the peer committers on the project are willing to vote them in, so it is
really in the hands of committers how quickly they want to grant access.
Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxx>
09/09/2014 02:42 AM
Restructuring review for the "e4 tools" Git project migrating
to its own project
thanks, sounds like a good analysis.
One clarification question from my side. In the past the
Platform UI team was relative restrictive with giving commit rights to
contributors. The e4 tools team was not very restrictive in giving commit
If we add all existing committers to Platform UI I assume
we would need some kind of governance for the new committers. I'm not sure
if our team (platform.ui) has the capacity for that yet. Has this been
considered in the recommendation?
We had a discussion about this in our last PMC call. We talked about the
1) Migrate tools into a new project
2) Migrate tools into PDE
3) Migrate tools into Platform UI
Option 1) is always a possibility. There is some added overhead with each
new project, such as committer elections and various other bits of Eclipse
process. In general if there is an existing project that is a good fit
I would recommend that over the work of creating an indefinitely maintaining
a new project.
Option 2) makes sense on a conceptual level because PDE is the home of
all tooling specific to the Eclipse platform runtime. However there is
absolutely no connection between these tools and the existing PDE code
base, and no overlap between committers. So it "fits the category"
but otherwise has no common ground with the contents of that project. Also,
once modularity comes to the Java language, we will likely see PDE align
more closely with JDT, and the e4 tooling doesn't fit with that.
Option 3) is compelling because there is a strong overlap between current
committers on both tools and runtime, and of course close relationship
between the tooling and runtime code - when one has significant changes
the other likely needs to react to it. After some discussion, all members
of the PMC are in favor of this option and this is what we recommend. This
would be implemented by creating a new Git repository under Platform UI
project to host the tools, and then elect all active contributors on the
graduating tooling into Platform UI. It would initially be a separate feature
that is available in the project repository that is installed separately
(like Eclipse Releng Tools, for example). This would immediately accomplish
the goal of making it easy for end users to install into Eclipse Mars and
beyond. In the future it could be added to EPP packages where that makes
sense (such as the RCP development package).
So Option 3) is the current PMC recommendation, but if the e4 tools contributors
want to take it in a different direction, such as a new project, we are
happy to talk about it. What do you think?
2014-08-27 14:57 GMT+02:00 John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>:
We had to cancel our PMC call today because several of us were out or unavailable,
so we'll need to talk about this next week. I have to say I always thought
of PDE as the eventual home for all those tools. Note that being under
the same project does not necessarily mean they have to be included in
the same feature as the basic plugin tooling. It could be built as one
or more separately installable features that live under the same project.
They could even live in a separate Git repository from the other PDE code.
The only tangible difference with a new project is that it has a distinct
committer group. But in the long term I'm not sure there will be a large
enough committer base for that to be needed. Would it be worth setting
up a call to talk about the different options here?
e4 tools provide the tools to create and work with Eclipse 4 based applications,
IDE's as well as RCP applications.
Parts of the tools are planned to get integrated into PDE, i.e. the e4
project wizard. But others, like the application model editor and the "spies"
are currently not planned to be integrated to PDE as they (in parts) depend
on extensions of the EMF framework, like the EMF undo / redo support.
The e4 tools would like to get included into the "official" Mars
release. Our users complain that they have to seek a different update site
to get the tools integrated.