Ian,
Comments below.
On 03/09/2013 3:01 AM, Ian Bull wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Ed Merks <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
John,
Please me be equally provocative.
Hi everyone, before we declare thermonuclear war on each other, let's
take a step back.
Actually I think it's healthy, though somewhat heated discussion....
John, there is no doubt that the success of Eclipse is a result of
vibrant eco-system that has grown-up around the platform. The
successful Eclipse projects that build on the platform are just as
important as the core. I would argue that EMF (and Ed Merks in
particular) is not simply an 'Eclipse Adopter'. In fact, I would say
Ed has set the gold standard for Eclipse development.
Thanks for the kind words.
Ed, John is 100% correct that the project committers get the final say
for all decisions. This is not just *how* it works, it's how it *must*
work. Eclipse is a meritocracy, and John Arthorne has certainly earned
the right to make any decisions regarding the core API -- and I don't
think you could find anybody here that would disagree with that. John
has gone above and beyond everyone else to ensure that the Eclipse
Platform continually ships quality code, on-time.
I agree that John is 100% correct on this issue and I, along with my
committers, too reserve the right to make such decisions for EMF. I'm
just pointing out that this is just one facet of the coin (or more like
a die than a coin with many facets)...
So, where do we go when two well-respected members of the Eclipse
community have a different view of a core component that is shared
between them?
Actually I doubt we really have a fundamentally different view. John is
a very nice person and there are few I respect more than him in our
community. He has an exemplary track record.
I wonder if the Architecture Council could play a role here?
I'm confident that John will do what's right for the Eclipse platform
and for the community.
I don't think there is currently any precedent for this, but Wayne is
re-working some of the EDP and maybe the AC should be given some power
to actually 'architect' when different opinions emerge? Thoughts....
In the end I must agree with the point you reiterate above. It's John's
right, and the committer's right, to do with the Eclipse project what
they feel is best for the Eclipse project. I trust they will take other
obligations into consideration and am reminding them what those
obligations are. We definitely don't need some external body acting as
an enforcer, though moderators such as yourself are always a welcome
addition.
Finally, I want to call out Hendrik (the GSoC student working on
this). I'm not in any position to judge your work this summer, but as
a former GSoC student I couldn't imagine finding myself in a position
such as this. Please don't let this little schism discourage you.
Yes, don't take the commentary personally. In principle it's an
interesting idea.
Cheers,
Ian
_______________________________________________
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
