Hi Kevin, > Is there any reason why these two projects need to be independent Eclipse projects?
The Eclipse OMR project has components that can be used to build any kind of language runtime (currently we have Java, Javascript, Lua, Swift, Ruby, Smalltalk, Rosie Pattern Language, and some "example" projects that are based on the Eclipse OMR project). OpenJ9 is "just" the Java-specific code that uses Eclipse OMR (though it's also the most comprehensive consumer of OMR and the original source for the components in the Eclipse OMR project). So, while the two projects are "pretty tight" and we want OpenJ9 to aggressively leverage advances made in OMR, the two projects are really separate entities with very different goals and different communities. I wonder: would the fact that these projects are both Eclipse projects (again, thinking positively since OpenJ9 hasn't yet passed its creation review!) help with the IP concerns? Mark Stoodley 8200 Warden Avenue Senior Software Developer Markham, L6G 1C7 IBM Runtime Technologies Canada Phone: +1-905-413-5831 e-mail: [email protected] We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein From: Kevin Sutter <[email protected]> To: Discussions for new Eclipse projects <[email protected]> Date: 2017/07/27 04:17 PM Subject: Re: [incubation] continuous integration of another Eclipse project... Sent by: [email protected] Mark, Is there any reason why these two projects need to be independent Eclipse projects? Could a single Eclipse project encompass both efforts, with each component (openj9 and omr) just be separate efforts with separate repositories? From your description, it sounds like these two "projects" are pretty tight. Just wondering why they need to be separate. Even if these components exist within a single project, each component could still release it's own artifacts and versions. For example, if OMR still wants to produce independent releases, they could do that. And, then have those results feed into the openj9 component or project. We're doing a sort-of similar thing with the MicroProfile project. We have several components within MicroProfile, each with it's own release cycle -- Config API, Fault Tolerance API, JWT RBAC propogation, OpenTracing, etc. And, then the results of these independent efforts will feed into the overall MicroProfile releases. -- Kevin On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Mark Stoodley <[email protected]> wrote: The OpenJ9 project proposal is in its creation review at this point ( https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-openj9). This project will be consuming the Eclipse OMR project on a regular (actually, continuous, is what we would like) basis. These two projects are quite closely linked (in that Eclipse OMR provides Virtual Machine technology components, like garbage collection and JIT compilers, that are then "specialized" by OpenJ9 to implement a Java Virtual Machine). What we're imagining is that OpenJ9 will maintain its own private "fork" of Eclipse OMR (an openj9.omr repository alongside the primary openj9 repository we're optimistically expecting to be created at GitHub) that we want to mirror commits from the upstream Eclipse OMR project when they happen. We really do think we want to be at the bleeding edge on both projects at the same time (because life isn't challenging enough, I guess). One motivating reason for that is so that OpenJ9 can immediately test and react to the impact of Eclipse OMR commits in the context of a Java Virtual Machine (i.e. leveraging tests written in Java). I'm wondering primarily how this kind of consumption model should interact with the CQs one normally files when the "version" of a dependent project is being updated: if OpenJ9 pulls in every Eclipse OMR commit, which could mean up to 40+ commits per week, I'm *really* *really* hoping that will not require a CQ each. Another possibly relevant wrinkle is that, despite lots of activity, Eclipse OMR hasn't done a release yet (yeah, we're proud :( ). Does any other project do this kind of thing already? Any advice or, especially, feedback on how we can pragmatically use this kind of model and meet our IP tracking requirements? Is there anything Eclipse OMR needs to do to facilitate this consumption model, and is there anything we need to ensure in the construction of OpenJ9 (or its private fork of OMR) to make this work and be practical? --mark _______________________________________________ incubation mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation _______________________________________________ incubation mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
_______________________________________________ incubation mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
