[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[eclipse.org-architecture-council] EDP changes
- From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:30:15 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (X11/20090817)
Greetings noble AC dignitaries (too over-the-top?)
As discussed on the call today, here is a link to the new version of the
There is a link on the document that points to changes (as well as a
link to the previous version). There's another link that adds some
annotations to key points in the document.
There are three major changes (as discussed today):
First, I've removed the notions of Container- and Operating-Projects.
Now we just have projects. All projects can opt to either have code or
not. They can have downloads, builds, websites, etc. or not. Projects
can opt to do roll up builds of sub-projects. I have started to add some
new words to describe what a project is (curiously absent from the
current version). I am not happy with the formalized notion of
"Sub-Project", so watch section 4 for changes that will likely talk
about Projects and Top-Level Projects as a special case of Project. I
will add some words to indicate that the term "sub-project" tends to be
used when considering anything but a top-level project. A "sub-project"
is simply a project that has a parent. Something like that (I've
wrestled more with this than anything else. <sigh>).
Second, the notion of Incubators is made formal in section 4.9.
Incubators do not do releases. They do not graduate. They do not require
continuation reviews (or reviews of any form). Incubators remain
perpetually in the Incubation phase.
Third, I've made an existing project creation loophole formal. New
projects can be created directly from a restructuring review in section
6.3.8(I've also consolidated Move and Restructuring Reviews) under
certain conditions (the scope must be preserved).
The bizarre legalese-capitalization of key words bothers me; I will
likely change that at some point in the future. The HTML in the original
document was pretty terrible, so I've been fixing that up as well. I had
been resisting that to avoid cluttering up the differencing between the
documents. I may need to declare failure on that particular concern soon...
I apologise for not getting this to you sooner. There really shouldn't
be any big surprises in here.
I need your feedback ASAP. Even a "it looks good to me" sort of feedback
would be fantastic.
Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
I'm going to EclipseCon!