| Re: [tycho-dev] Replacing BeanShell by Groovy |
|
Hi guys,
I'm follwoing discussion from: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=374349#c37 and https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=374349#c38 I do know that integrating external contributions, may them require a CQ or not, is additional work. With a Git-based process in an open community, being a committer is not only about writing code, it's also about reviewing contributions, encouraging contributions, leading some technical discussions... So I'm a bit surprised to hear about committers complaining getting external contributions into project is extra work: yes it is, it will always be, and it is part of a committer duty IMO. To come back more specifically to this contribution, it adds the usage of Groovy. After a technical discussion, I did all I can to show you that moving from BeanShell to Groovy is not a bad thing, and that it is straightforward and adds some cool abilities for testing. As requested, I wrote all the necessary stuff to merge it. In previous mails and Gerrit comments, we agreed it would be fine to be integrated, depending on IP cleanness. Later, I found out this would require a CQ. Actually, it's not usage of Groovy by itself, but usage of maven-invoker-plugin that requires it. Please note that Tycho has been using maven-invoker-plugin for a long time without any related CQ. So the CQ I suggest is more than an optional CQ for an optional improvement, it's also a fix in the IP cleanness of the project. Then I discussed with Wayne in order to get this CQ as ready as possible to be submitted. The remaining work for you is simply to click on https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5252 , adjust by changing the list of dependencies to the one given earlier. It'd require less time to submit this CQ than it will require to answer this mail. About this specific issue (source feature titles and included move to Groovy), I'm a bit frustrated to see how slow is the integration process. That's now 2 releases of Tycho since I submitted initial patch. I got feedback late after the contribution, and it did never get a chance to get in a release, despite all efforts I made to satisfy various requirements. Resolution is now blocked by a CQ to be submitted, and I'm frustrated to see that this issue, which is one of the top-voted/followed, has simply stagnated for months. I can fully understand you don't have time to work on this specifically, or whatever reason that makes it less interesting to you than it is to all people following the bug. That's totally fair, and that's why I made as many steps as I can to make it easy for you to get it merged. So OK, I'm requesting you some extra-work, but I did all I can to request as little time as possible. I've been doing my best, but it's not enough. The rest is in your hands, it's work for you. It's how integrating contributions works. Cheers, PS: Note that this comment only applies to this specific case. I'm still quite happy of how issues are managed in general, and I think you're doing a good job for both users and contributors. It's just this source-feature name/Groovy contribution that is bugging me. On 11/07/2012 11:29 AM, Mickael Istria wrote:
|
