|Re: [tools-pmc] Fwd: PDT Incubator Project|
Hi David. Thanks for the question.There are several very active general incubator projects. If there was any discussion of retiring the notion, I was not involved in it.
I think that you're correct that Aspect PDT, SmartyPDT and AST View could all be easily created as subprojects in their own right under PDT. However, there is some administrative overhead associated with the creation and maintenance of each project; I have to assume that the PDT project did some due diligence and decided that this was the best approach given their current situation.
The real question (for me) is does the notion of a general incubator project violate any of the principles that underlie the development process?
I don't think it does. You could argue that it is difficult to nail down a reasonable scope for such projects. But does that hinder the ability to develop a community, keep open and transparent, or maintain high quality and IP cleanliness?
I'm willing to have that discussion. Thanks again, Wayne David M Williams wrote:
Are not general incubator projects a thing of past? I know we in WTP started one before there were some changes in Eclipse Dev. Guide which made it easier to start new, specific projects, which would still start in the incubating state, under the appropriate project. We've done the "specific" case for the recent Pave project, for example, and expect our general incubator to be phased out as its current components are graduated or archived. I'm not opposed to this (or other) general incubating projects, but feel we (Eclipse) should be clear on which direction to steer projects in ... as it is currently a bit confusing. For the three example in the proposal, Aspect PDT, SmartyPDT, AST View, it seems they would already be in PHP scope, so I assume the main need to a place to put the code, and for some people to have new committer rights, without having full committer rights to the core PHP code? I don't mean to make more work for anyone ... but wouldn't this be the case to propose three small incubating projects, each with a defined goal and scope? If not, that's fine, but I'd like to understand why not. Again, either outcome is fine with me ... I just think there should be a clear direction from Eclipse Dev. Guide (i.e. Wayne :) Thanks,From: Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx> To:Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 08/17/2009 12:15 PM Subject: [tools-pmc] Fwd: PDT Incubator Project Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx Mike, Wayne, Tools PMC, Please review and comment on this PDT Incubator Project proposal.(I sent this out earlier but I did not see a response. Apologies if you did respond and I missed it.)http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/pdt-incubator/ Anne Jacko emo@xxxxxxxxxxx Begin forwarded message: From: Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: July 23, 2009 4:30:47 PM PDT To: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Beaton < wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Roy Ganor <roy@xxxxxxxx>, Tools PMC mailing list < tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: PDT Incubator Project Mike and Wayne (cc Tools PMC, Roy),Roy has proposed a PDT Incubator project. Please review and comment -- thanks!http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/pdt-incubator/ Anne Jacko emo@xxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ tools-pmc mailing list tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
Back to the top