On 8/8/2013 9:53 AM, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
I think this illustrates quite well the trouble of leaving such
decisions to projects, without even providing guidance as to what's
recommended.
I agree, but I think it also highlights
a) SR projects have different consumers...meaning that for some projects
some things are expected/required (e.g. source), and for others it's
not. Thus the projects are not necessarily wrong to make some
assumptions about 'the audience'...because their audience may very well
be different from some other project's audience
b) IMHO it doesn't make sense for the planning council to make/add new
requirements...or even 'strong recommendations/guidance'...without
providing some resources to the projects to implement them. Because
given (very) limited resources, most of the projects will focus on their
consumer's needs specifically (e.g. David's WTP example)...because
that's what they have to do...or drop out of the SR...which has been
happening to some degree, unfortunately.
c) I agree that all of the projects have a shared interest in having the
SR be a uniform, easy, positive experience for all consumers. I also
think that most project leads (at least) recognize that shared
interest. But IMHO...when faced with resource issues, the shared
interest is easily trumped by a, b.
Scott
It is too easy for projects to make too many assumptions about the
audience that is using the simrel repository. Note that I am not
talking about the audience for a particular EPP package. For instance,
based on current repository composition, plugin developers do use the
simrel repository, but they like to code against JDT (for instance)
and not WTP (for instance). This type of inconsistency really reduces
the value of the simrel repository as it forces developers to go
hunting for pieces they need elsewhere and hope that they get the
right version to match pieces they got from simrel repo. It also
limits the type of EPP packages that can be created, since EPP
packages can only draw from the simrel repo.
Thanks,
- Konstantin
*From:*cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] *On Behalf Of
*David M Williams
*Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM
*To:* Cross project issues
*Subject:* Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel
aggregate repo
We did not discuss it to that level (pros and cons of including
source) ... just that it is good to leave as much as possible up to
the independent projects to decide for themselves.
"Common repository" is a misnomer and I should be more careful not to
call it that. It has never been the intent to provide one repository
with everything ... the intent is simply to provide a repository for
the Simultaneous Release: and its purpose is to make it easier for
users to find and get what they need for what ever task or role that
are focused on ... and the planning council thinks it is best to leave
decision or analysis up to the project and their community and adopters.
To give one example, that I just happen to know you are interested in
:) ... I think WTP decided many years ago not to include source since
the primary audience, web developers, did not need the source, and
having it there a) made it more complicated for the casual end-user
web developer to decide what to get (they likely don't know if they
need source or not) and b) if source was provided (either
automatically, or by user selection) it nearly doubles the download
sizes [just going by my old, possibly inaccurate memories] so it was
decided not to put source there in Sim. Rel. repo.
I'm just trying to recount history .. and admit it is confusing to
call the repo by so many names ... not arguing pro or con to include
source or not ... the important point being that we (Planning Council)
want each project to be able to decide as much as possible what to
contribute . And with that, I will bow out of this discussion as it is
up to the project.
Thanks
From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com
<mailto:konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com>>
To: "'Cross project issues'" <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>,
Date: 08/08/2013 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel
aggregate repo
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:*cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] *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" <konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com
<mailto:konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com>>
To: "'Cross project issues'" <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>,
Date: 08/01/2013 05:04 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel
aggregate repo
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:*cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org]
*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" <konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com
<mailto:konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com>>
To: "'Cross project issues'" <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>,
Date: 08/01/2013 02:18 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel
aggregate repo
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:*cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org]
*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" <konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com
<mailto:konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com>>
To: "'Cross project issues'" <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>,
Date: 08/01/2013 12:58 PM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
_cross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>_
_https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list_
_cross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>_
_https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list_
_cross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>_
_https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev