Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal

Hi Ian, more of my personal comments:

1. GEF is clearly a mature project in maintenance mode. [...]

Incorrect. GEF is not in maintenance mode. GEF is a stable project that has fewer major features year over year because the community has not contributed them. GEF has been consistently keeping up with Eclipse releases and new OS platforms every year as part of every Eclipse simultaneous release. When the community has contributed larger features, GEF has accommodated them (Zest is perfect example of that). GEF has been adding small fixes to Helios as dependent teams have asked for them. We have even been asked for API changes and we have gladly incorporated them. A project in maintenance mode would be adverse to all change. This is not the case with GEF.

2. The people doing the work are (for the most part) not active committers on other projects. An incubator will give us a chance to help mentor them.

Does this make sense? What is the difference between mentoring a committer on an incubating project or a released project?

3. [...] Forcing new ideas to follow API freeze rules (for example) will only stiffle innovation.

If you feel this strongly that working within the GEF project is going to stiffle innovation?

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613


Inactive hide details for Ian Bull ---2010/02/04 05:11:36 PM---Actually, while I think making this part of GEF proper could worIan Bull ---2010/02/04 05:11:36 PM---Actually, while I think making this part of GEF proper could work, the more I think about it the more an incubator makes sense.


From:
Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:
2010/02/04 05:11 PM

Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] GEF Incubator Proposal



Actually, while I think making this part of GEF proper could work, the more I think about it the more an incubator makes sense.

1. GEF is clearly a mature project in maintenance mode.  Many of the ideas being presented in this proposal stray well off the beaten path.  An incubator will help ensure that GEF maintains it's current direction in the short term, with the possibilty of new ideas flowing in down the road.

2. The people doing the work are (for the most part) not active committers on other projects. An incubator will give us a chance to help mentor them.

3. The GEF project, follows a similar plan as the platform (with respect to schedules, etc...).  Forcing new ideas to follow API freeze rules (for example) will only stiffle innovation.

We could, if it makes more sense, propose this project under "Technology".  But since this is tied closely to GEF, a tools project (IMHO) seems appropriate.

cheers,
ian


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Another benefit is that you can have a lower bar for committers on the incubator. You can use the incubator to grow folks into committer-worthy status. Just a thought

    The bar is as high as the existing committers set it. ;). I'm still hoping for the "Eclipse Labs" concept to develop so we can create such sandboxes there.
     
    Wayne

    Doug Schaefer wrote:

      BTW, the only benefit would be parallel IP. You can do those other things without the hassle of creating and managing a second project. And even parallel IP could be handled by storing the initial code off site. Until it's ready for the review.

      Of course, if you want to do it, I'm fine with that. It just a pet peave of mine.

      On Feb 3, 2010 8:56 AM, "Ian Bull" <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

      I don't know, that's a good question.  I thought that incubators provided a number of advantages for new projects and new ideas, such as:

         * Parallel IP
         * Pre 1.0 (wrt to API)
         * A clear indication to early adopters of what to expect

      I don't have a problem with creating this work as a sub component of GEF, although some of this work is clearly "incubation" style work (new ideas with undefined API that will hopefully graduate -- but that will depend on the quality and demand of the work being done).

      Anthony, as the GEF lead, what do you tihnk?

      cheers,
      ian

      On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > I am on the record a...


      _______________________________________________
      tools-pmc mailing list
      tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------


      _______________________________________________
      tools-pmc mailing list
      tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
       

    --
    Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
    http://www.eclipse.org

    I'm going to EclipseCon!
    http://www.eclipsecon.org


    _______________________________________________
    tools-pmc mailing list
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


    _______________________________________________
    tools-pmc mailing list
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc



--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


GIF image

GIF image

Back to the top