Re: [ecf-dev] Luna comitment

[Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A couple of responses:

> Corollary (for existing committers at least):  Are you able and willing to commit some time to ECF work to help meet the project deadlines?

Sure but we do not have to make a big release just to be in the train.

No, we don't have to make a big release to be on the train...in fact for Kepler we used/contributed a service release (3.6.1).  But, there *is* work that is required to satisfy the release train requirements, and much to my frustration...the release train requirements have not decreased...at least from my chair as project lead.  So I will need/require commitments from committers and/or contributors to assist in meeting these train requirements.

Do we have any (empirical) data that ECF benefits from participating in
a release train? My gut feeling is that our consumers usually do not
need/use an ECF release that is synced with the rest of the release train.

This is a hard one to answer definitively...because no one can really tell how much from the release train repos actually gets installed, used, etc.

Here's my take:   I think we do get some benefit from being on the release train...because I suspect that a lot of consumers (both ECF consumers and everyone else) pay some attention to the release train...along with the marketing/promotion/articles/etc...and thinks of this as 'the release' for all Eclipse projects.  Of course it's not...and ECF has more frequent significant releases (e.g. 3.7 is coming up this fall/soon)...and those consumers that already use ECF probably don't benefit much from ECF being on the release train.  OTOH, I do think we benefit for new consuemrs by the promotion, build up, etc. that comes from the simultaneous release...although it's a judgment call about whether it's worth it...and IMHO the value of the SR for us is actually going down over time...because more of our users are more interested in/using OSGi remote services...which is OSGi rather than Eclipse-per-se.

The main advantage is that ECF is then in the big repo. If ECF is not part of the train then ppl have to pull it from a different repo. This alone is a huge advantage imo. 

Why do you feel this is such an advantage?  Is it that you effectively already have the SR repo already in the Eclipse release...so you don't have to go to ECF's download page, get the URL, enter it into the install manager, etc?...or is it something more/else?

Thanks,

Scott

On 9/9/2013 11:13 AM, Wim Jongman wrote:

The main advantage is that ECF is then in the big repo. If ECF is not part of the train then ppl have to pull it from a different repo. This alone is a huge advantage imo. 

Cheers,

Wim

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Markus Alexander Kuppe <ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 09/09/2013 07:57 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
> I would like to have a public discussion about whether ECF will
> participate in the Luna release.  We soon have to publicly submit our
> intention to participate or not, and although my inclination is 'yes', I
> would like to have a community discussion about this, because I may not
> have the personal resources to do all the necessary work, and it so it
> does/will require work from many if not all the existing committers
> (e.g. review materials, release engineering, as well as
> code/development/test/docs contributions, etc).
>
> Question:  Should ECF participate in Luna next year?
> Corollary (for existing committers at least):  Are you able and willing
> to commit some time to ECF work to help meet the project deadlines?

Do we have any (empirical) data that ECF benefits from participating in
a release train? My gut feeling is that our consumers usually do not
need/use an ECF release that is synced with the rest of the release train.

M.

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

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