Konstantin, I don't think there were specific arguments against contributing source bundles -- we generally agreed that source bundles are a "good thing". The arguments were that the Planning Council should not make this a requirement of the train. Overall there has been a movement to reduce the process at Eclipse, and each "must do" should be taken very seriously. In the case of the release train, what is the consequence of not doing this: Do we kick them off the train? What if they have a good reason? What if it doesn't make sense in their particular case? What if the bundle source-header is more appropriate?
Instead of trying to legislate this, we decided that each project should do what's right for them. I also brought this up on the AC today, and there was agreement there that projects should be encouraged to provide source bundles, but not mandated. Cheers, Ian On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Konstantin Komissarchik < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the summary. I would be curious to know what the arguments > against contributing source were… It seems to me that the status quo has > led to inconsistency, an antithesis to the point of having a common > repository.**** > > ** ** > > - Konstantin**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David M > Williams > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:39 PM > > *To:* Cross project issues > *Subject:* Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate > repo**** > > ** ** > > Since I promised ... just to close the loop on this (my part of the loop, > anyway), the Planning Council decided the "status quo" was adequate as far > as Planning Council was concerned ... that is, we won't say one way or the > other and will continue to let each project decide exactly what to > contribute to common repository ... based, as usual, on their interaction, > requests, and feedback, with their community and adopters, and their other > priorities. > > Good luck and thanks, > > > > > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[email protected] > > > To: "'Cross project issues'" <[email protected]>, > > Date: 08/01/2013 05:04 PM > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel > aggregate repo > Sent by: [email protected] **** > ------------------------------ > > > > > Thanks, David. When thinking about plugin developers, I find it is useful > to further divide that group into those working on eclipse.org projects > and the rest. Those working on eclipse.org projects, especially those > also participating in the simultaneous release, need to track integration > builds of their dependencies, know where those come from, etc. The rest > could certainly benefit from being able to get everything they need > (including source) from the simultaneous release repo. > > I will start opening bugs for projects that don’t contribute source as I > need it for the Ultimate Edition. Let me know if the Planning Council needs > further input from me on this topic. > > Thanks, > > - Konstantin > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *David M Williams* > Sent:* Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:42 PM* > To:* Cross project issues* > Subject:* Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate > repo > > I'll add to Planning Council Agenda, but you might "work you point of > view" through your Planning Council rep ... with a specific proposal. I'm > not sure "EPP" vs. "Common Repo" changes that much (just in my opinion) > since the common repo has been seen as primarily for "end users" (granted, > some end users are "developers of plugins") so it'd be nice to have concise > clear statement of what projects "should do", in general. But, yes, you > (anyone) can always ask specific projects to do it differently ... we have > no prohibition against it. I know for WTP, many years ago, it was decided > not to include source, simply because it was felt developers "knew how to > get the source" from WTP's project and no reason to burden everyone else > with it. [And, believe me, the Planning Council has discussed many times > and could never even come up with a good definition of "SDK" :) ... well, > you know, one that applied to all Eclipse projects.]. > > This history is one of the reasons we (me especially) recommend people do > not "build against" the common repo ... but, instead build against each > individual project they want ... but I know that advise usually goes > unheeded (but was happy when I once saw you give the same advice :) > > Thanks for your efforts, > > > > > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[email protected] > > > To: "'Cross project issues'" <[email protected]>, > > Date: 08/01/2013 02:18 PM > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel > aggregate repo > Sent by: [email protected] **** > ------------------------------ > > > > > > I suspect that what has happened in at least some of the cases is that the > requirements of the corresponding EPP package drove what was contributed to > the simrel repository. A natural effect, but not ideal, since the user base > for the simrel repo is more diverse in their requirements. > > Should this continue to be at project’s discretion or should contributing > source to simrel repo be a requirement? I doubt that projects would object > to contributing source if asked, but maybe it would be better spelled out > up front. > > - Konstantin > > * > From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *David M Williams* > Sent:* Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:50 AM* > To:* Cross project issues* > Subject:* Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate > repo > > This has always been viewed to be the contributing project's decision. > (Which ... is true in general ... some projects do not contribute ALL their > features to common repo; such as perhaps not examples, perhaps not some of > the rarer functions, etc.). I know for WTP, it was thought best to minimize > download (so no source ... last I knew), since it was intended for people > developing web apps ... not for people developing plugins for WTP. > > Hope that answers what you were asking. > > > > > > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[email protected] > > > To: "'Cross project issues'" <[email protected]>, > > Date: 08/01/2013 12:58 PM > Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel > aggregate repo > Sent by: [email protected] **** > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > As part of working on the definition for Eclipse Ultimate Edition, I have > discovered that a number of prominent projects do not contribute source to > the simrel repo. Before I start opening bugs, is there prior context or > discussion on whether or not source code should be in the simrel repo? Note > that I am not asking whether source code should be in a particular package > as that’s dependent on the user that the package is targeting. > > Thanks, > > - Konstantin_______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484 http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
