> The real problem is "the platform team" vanishes :((. Unless the > broad community steps in to strengthen it we are done.
The platform team isn't going to vanish unless Eclipse vanishes. There may not be demand for a large group of platform contributors because the foundation is good enough and now it's time to build the chimney. To try to get back on topic... The Planning Council is responsible for establishing the simultaneous release and resolving cross-project issues that arise. The topic of whether Juno should be 3.8 or 4.2 based (or both) was on the agenda for many meetings last year. Perhaps this should be on the agenda again for the next meeting? http://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council - Konstantin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aleksandar Kurtakov Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:17 AM To: Cross project issues Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[email protected]> > To: "Cross project issues" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:13:41 PM > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 > > > "The one that does the job decides!" > > Indeed, but the rest of that quote is "and accepts consequences for > those decisions". > > I do not believe that the broad community is disinterested in helping > 4.x in reaching maturity. This thread and others like it are simply a > call to slow down and to do this more safely. It would not be wise for > the platform team to disregard these calls. The real problem is "the platform team" vanishes :((. Unless the broad community steps in to strengthen it we are done. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team > > - Konstantin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Aleksandar Kurtakov > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:02 AM > To: Cross project issues > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephan Herrmann" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:40:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2 > > > > On 09/06/2012 08:23 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote: > > > Introducing a new platform undoubtedly consumes a lot of > > > resources. > > > Doing that anyway (and as the only viable alternative), well aware > > > that those resources were scarce and that the new platform had > > > inferior performance, and then blame the community for not > > > helping, that doesn't fly well with me. > > > > Maybe the problem is, "the community" isn't quite as homogeneous as > > we keep thinking. 3.8 vs. 4.2 is a conflict of interests between > > different groups of people. > > > > If you are part of the group that only sees regressions not a single > > improvement in 4.2, it's difficult to get motivated helping those > > other guys getting their baby up to speed. Of course those who > > greatly benefit from the new architecture don't want to get slowed > > down by "legacy" decisions. > > > > Lets call one group the IDE nerds and the other group the e4-RCP > > folks. > > As a thought experiment: are the e4-RCP folks strong enough in > > resources to make 4.3 a replacement that will not get into faces of > > the IDE nerds? > > What about e4-RCP folks outnumber the IDE nerds significantly (amongst > active contributors) so it's there call. > "The one that does the job decides!" > > Alexander Kurtakov > Red Hat Eclipse team > > > > > > I don't know the answer, but I feel the answer differs depending on > > whether you focus on functionality, bugs, performance or usability. > > > > Yes, we are still one community, and I'm not advocating fences and > > boundaries, but helping each other seems to work best when cost and > > benefits are equally balanced in all regions of this community. > > > > > > > > On 09/06/2012 07:06 AM, Pascal Rapicault wrote: > > > But more importantly than all this is the meta conclusion that > > > the > > > era of being able to take the platform for granted is over and > > > that > we are all going to have to pay more attention to it, roll > > up our > sleeves and contribute. > > > > I'd like to second this. No part of the entire ecosystem can be > > taken for granted, not the platform, not jdt, not p2, nor the team > > providers. > > All components need continued care and everybody needs help (no > > sarcasm intended, in case anyone wonders). > > > > cheers, > > Stephan > > > > PS: Great to see efforts to bring performance tests back! Thanks! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
