|Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] AC 13-Oct Meeting Minutes|
Thanks for sending this! Here are some random thoughts. Apologies again for missing the call!
I was looking at the Eclipse Ultimate discussion. As a point of reference, until recently, our guideline for ICE was "add any feature that would be useful to a scientist and is IP approved." It ballooned to about 1.2G, and we had to cull the list once complaints started rolling in. It ended up being an all around bad experience for us, so now we have a much smaller build at 511MB and are trying to go smaller.
Something I also wanted to mention along the UX line is that I've been playing with the Atom editor (http://atom.io) lately. It is, in my opinion, a very good example of how lightweight a code editor could (some would say should) be and it roughly lines up with what I was pitching for a "lightweight Eclipse build" in our post-ECNA discussion thread.
Jay Jay Billings
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings
From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Oberhuber, Martin <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:24 PM
Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] AC 13-Oct Meeting Minutes
Notes of the meeting we just had are now online:
Actions for Wayne, Eike and myself.
I’d like to mention that we had good attendance (14), but from the official PMC reps we only got 5 out of 12. We can discuss next month whether that’s an issue or not … but perhaps the not attending PMCs could consider nominating people who would be willing to join ? Today BIRT, DTP, Mylyn, RT, SOA, WTP and LocationTech were not officially represented. Maybe not an issue, but I did want to point it out.
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
Back to the top