Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase


Nothing secret. I want to ask them what they think a good date would be to put on the agenda.

Sure, we'll also probably discuss what our PMC role is supposed to be, clarify what the process is.

But, don't worry,  we'll listen to your proposal and consider it fairly.  We are not deciding in advance.





From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'WTP PMC communications \(including coordination, announcements,        and Group discussions\)'" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/28/2010 03:53 PM
Subject: RE: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase
Sent by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx





Hmm… A closed discussion and we’ll get back to you? Strikes me a little contrary to the spirit of open source…
 
From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent:
Friday, May 28, 2010 12:43 PM
To:
WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)
Subject:
Re: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase

 

I'll discuss with the PMC soon, and we'll get back to you on an appropriate date. My guess is it would be 6/15, at the earliest.



From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/26/2010 04:44 PM
Subject: [wtp-pmc] Moving faceted project framework codebase
Sent by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

 






Esteemed members of WTP PMC,

 
I would like to join one of the upcoming PMC calls to discuss moving the existing faceted project framework code base from WTP Common to the Faceted Project Framework (fproj) project under Technology. The fproj project already contains the v-next code line for the framework. I originally thought that it would make sense to leave the existing code line in WTP while v-next is being developed, but experience over the past year has shown this structure to be less than optimal. It is more difficult than necessary to propagate changes from the maintenance line to v-next, the community is fragmented between two projects (forums and mailing lists) and governance issues can present a challenge.

 
In terms of logistics, I’d like to propose the following:

 
1. Wait until Helios is complete.

2. Do a move review.

3. Ask EMO to copy relevant plugins and features from WTP CVS location to the new project. This will preserve all the history.

4. Start producing builds from this code line. Same plugin id’s, feature id’s, package names, etc. will be used as in WTP.

5. WTP build is altered to consume these binaries instead of building from local source.

6. Ask EMO to delete the moved plugins and features from WTP CVS repository.

 
The result will be a 1.x code line for maintenance and backwards compatibility work sitting alongside 2.x (v-next) code line. WTP would consume 1.x builds for foreseeable future. When version 2.0 is ready, the next 1.x release will be a backwards compatibility shim that will let existing code written against 1.x releases work with 2.0 framework.  Tentative release schedule is as follows:

 
1.4.1 – aligned with Helios SR1 dates

1.4.x – other service releases as necessary

2.0/1.5 – part of Summer 2011 release
 
Thanks,

 
- Konstantin
_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

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



Back to the top