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: