TLDR: Jody is alive. We have some organisation
here and
a bit of work to do (but the Eclipse Foundation seems to be
ready to help out on the hard part). Please join the Eclipse
Location Working group (even if just to lurk).
Jody
Still the question holds: who is going to
start the process of getting
uDig to eclipse. I think we would need to
have at least a couple of
members of the communtiy to assure presence
and contribution. Did I
loose another email thread?
Perhaps - We did start the process in December :-) However it
is going a bit slow as we need to ask eclipse to be comfortable
with us using LGPL license libraries (JTS and GeoTools). We can
probably get an exception for that by demonstrating how valuable
they are and that we don't have the capacity to rewrite them…
Other then that I think we are waiting to hear back from
Andrew and Andrew is waiting to hear back from us.
I am keen to start :-) As such I would like to fill in our
RFC and get a good list of tasks going to capture the work
involved so we can start to round up resources.
The page is here (is this what you missed?):
On a separate topic - I would like to see uDig taking part in
the eclipse "location" working group; however to date all the
meetings have been at 3am for me. I would like to ask that
someone else from the uDig community attend these (or we can ask
Andrew to hold two meetings and cary the minuets over between
them).
Andrew has a bit of a balancing act as representative of both
Eclipse and OSGeo Foundations. To be fair so do I since I the
OSGeo incubation chair. We can muddle along; but just a reminder
to play nice as we all have the same goals.
We have also failed to contact Refractions (although we have
asked Emily to check in with Refractions Management). Andrew you
may wish to use Emily as a useful Refractions contact until we
can arrange a better introduction - she is CCed on this email.
Other things in the mix:
- I would not mind changing the uDig license to EPL 1.0 to
simplify our license story. Our reasons for not using the
license were only based on the popularity of LGPL at the time
(and the eclipse common license at the time was not yet
established as a viable investment target).
- We have a smooth working relationship with GeoTools (a
policy of copying code over when possible to share. We would
need to amend this to cover a license transition from
EPL->LGPL perhaps a formal letter in our docs would work.
GeoServer has a similar arrangement (ask on the email list and
get approval) for the much harder GPL->LGPL transition so we
have working policy model to crib from.
- We are getting very fond of git; and github in particular.
While I don't mind continuing to persue github pages I would
like to focus on static content hosting; so we can take our docs
with us and not get tied into their fun little content theme
scrubber thing. Eclipse now has some procedures in place with
respect to git. While github documentation has been a key
success factor for the project - that limit is less damaging as
git becomes the defacto technology. More damaging is the "if it
is not on github the project must be canceled" attitude that has
already caused trouble for GeoTools and GeoServer :-)
Sure everybody can join. I am not afraid of the fact
that too many
people would help. It is the other way round :)
So if such a process is started, I think there should
be a minimum
number of developers that donate time to that
process. Else I am just
wondering who would do the work.
I am very keen; I want to talk with Andrew and determine how
much work there is and boil it down into tasks before asking the
project to accept the RFC proposal.
This thought comes from the fact that when uDig needs
to be released
and tested, very very few people are around.
The automated maven / tycho build is helping a lot with this
:-) Indeed I think that is one of the most amazing things the
Eclipse Foundation has done recently.
I would like some help on the release cycle front - as it
cuts out my time to work on QA and new ideas.
Well, the move towards
eclipse looks way bigger to me than that, and without
some
coordination I am just wondering how that should
work?
We have a small bit of coordination already started; thus far
there have been only two "common" concerns.
- After being on the incubation committee I was concerned
about the review processing being a lot of work - strangely
enough this appears to be the part where the eclipse foundation
is ready to step in and help (yay!)
- The eclipse foundation has a "1.0 release" from a fresh
codebase policy which apparently is often a cause of
contention. Since we lost our history moving to gitourious we
are rather relaxed about this one.
Jody
