If the project
comes to Eclipse under the BSD 3-clause, we won't need copyright
assignments from past contributors. Eclipse does not work that
way.
Hi Jay,
Right, sorry about the misstep about openness. Over time my
works seems to have moved away from newsgroups and large public
mailing lists to smaller lists with smaller communities. I'm
fine with having the conversation be public.
The control issue is not a huge issue, and it certainly has come
up in the past. Just something to watch for is all.
Part of my email really was about reusing the code in the ptII
core. These would be the classes in the kernel, actor,
actor.lib and other packages. We don't have to reuse this code,
but making these classes available could be a win. The issue is
that proving that the code is not encumbered and getting
assignments of copyright could be tricky, but is doable.
I'll post to the forum momentarily.
_Christopher
On 6/9/15 8:39 AM, Jay Jay Billings
wrote:
Christopher,
Thanks for the letter. Its great to meet you. I went
ahead and CC'ed the Science Working Group list on this
since it has turned into a technical discussion. Setting
up meetings is OK to do in private, but we need to keep
technical discussions in the open.
I absolutely love the name Triquetrum. I'm an
astrophysicist, so I know it well.
I am very glad to hear that you are joining the
Foundation. That is really great.
I wanted to address the issues of openness and access
that you bring up. First, Eclipse projects are required
to use the Eclipse infrastructure, even from the the
very beginning, and to have all lists, forums, and bug
reports out in the open. Repositories can be on either
Eclipse.org servers or Github and most new projects are
using the latter. Private communication can happen of
course, but the largest part of the discussion must be
public. We will find a very cold reception from the
community if we are not open.
As far as access to the code goes, the only people who
will have commit privileges will be people working on the
project, which will most likely be only the people on this
list. All contributions from other sources will have to
pass through a contribution mechanism such as a pull
request or bug report, which requires review by committers
and the IP team. So, I wouldn't worry about updates to the
core from the perspective of outside developers.
Actual project committers might change things in the code
contributed from Ptolemy, - 'Ptolemy core' - but that's
their job. Most likely we will have our own parts of the
project - even our own high-level cores - that we are
developing though. For example, I most likely won't be
working on any pieces of Triquetrum contributed from
Ptolemy because ICE doesn't use them and I don't know how
they work; I'll be working on the service layer and any
workflow components above it that directly relate to ICE,
like our Item and ItemManager infrastructure if I add that
as part of the initial contribution.
I was very interested in the last part of your email
about the different pieces of Ptolemy and how it works. I
think it will be easier to list these components of the
initial contribution and others on our Forum, so I started
a thread. (I personally have trouble reviewing this kind
of thing over email.)
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/m/1697926/#msg_1697926
This is very exciting!
Jay
--
Christopher Brooks, PMP University of California
Academic Program Manager & Software Engineer US Mail: 337 Cory Hall
CHESS/iCyPhy/Ptolemy/TerraSwarm Berkeley, CA 94720-1774
cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 707.332.0670 (Office: 545Q Cory)
