| Re: [rt-pmc] Juno Retrospective |
Which I think leads to the interesting question how much money would you pay to get your releng work done in a way that allows you to be on the release train. Multiply that by 70 and someone could make a good living out of it.The Riena perspective is a little different. Riena is no turn-key solution, so it always has its place in the target platform and the release train composite repo is a good way to get it there. Similar to Rap, Riena also has some tooling for the IDE.
ChristianWell, I can give a Gemini perspective, FTR.
The Gemini consumer community is primarily composed of application developers using OSGi. They have a bunch of bundles and they want to install them in a framework. They may or may not be using Equinox or even Eclipse. They often aren't installing many Gemini projects into the IDE so they don't care if they are in the common P2 repo. There are exceptions, of course, but apart from Gunnar and one or two other people involved in Eclipse projects we have not even had people ask for P2 access.
Take the project that I work the most on as an example. I do most of Gemini JPA solo, and it isn't my "regular job" so I simply don't have time to spend (or more accurately don't want to devote the time that I spend on the project) on management and release infrastructure tasks over and above what is absolutely necessary to get the bits into people's hands. Also, with insufficient or out-of-date documentation, I get frustrated too quickly and easily trying to figure out technologies that I am expected to use.
So in summary, it's not that we "don't want" to be on the release train, but more about just not wanting the extra work of figuring out all of the things that will be expected of us to be on there. If someone said, "Hey, give us your bundles and we will do the work of putting them in the right place and doing the work that is necessary for them to be there" then we would gratefully hand over our wares. However, we don't reasonably expect that from anyone, and given the lack of any significant advantage that we can discern to being on that train we have not been frothing to go down that path ourselves.
Having said all this, it was already listed as an agenda item to discuss on our upcoming Gemini project leads call. Ya never know...
-Mike
On 22/08/2012 10:36 AM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:To be clear - I don't think this perspective is just a Jesse/Jetty thing. Gemini is not on the release train either. Virgo wasn't exactly enthusiastic about the idea as far as I could tell.
From: Thomas Watson [mailto:tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: August-22-12 10:28 AM
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; Runtime Project PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [rt-pmc] Juno Retrospective
I agree with your points Mike and I would like to hear from Jesse what improvements can be made to the process and what value could be added that would have kept jetty on the release train.<ATT00001..gif>"Mike Milinkovich" ---08/22/2012 09:16:06 AM---Just a suggestion - feel free to ignore.
Tom
<ATT00002..png>
From:
<ATT00003..png>
"Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx><ATT00002..png>
To:
<ATT00003..png>
"'Runtime Project PMC mailing list'" <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,<ATT00002..png>
Date:
<ATT00003..png>
08/22/2012 09:16 AM<ATT00002..png>
Subject:
<ATT00003..png>
Re: [rt-pmc] Juno Retrospective
Just a suggestion - feel free to ignore.
It seems to me that we have a general issue with EclipseRT and the release train. More specifically, I think there is a sense that the release train is of less value to the RT projects. Or that the process is more burdensome for them. Jetty's recent announcement that they're not planning to participate in Kepler is a concrete example of this.
Perhaps a general conversation about what makes the release train more difficult or of less value to the RT projects would be helpful? What could be done to change that for the RT community?
Of course, it's possible that I am completely out to lunch on this perception. It wouldn't be the first time :)
From: rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Bull
Sent: August-22-12 9:49 AM
To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list
Subject: [rt-pmc] Juno Retrospective
Hi everyone,
The planning council is interested in feedback on the Juno Release. If you have anything (good or bad) that you would like to add to the Juno Retrospective, please follow up here and I'll pass the comments along to the planning council.
Also, the Kepler schedule has been finalized. You can see it here [1].
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Kepler/Simultaneous_Release_Plan#Schedule
Cheers,
Ian
--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
_______________________________________________ rt-pmc mailing list rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc<ATT00004..c>-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc