Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Stats on OS being used

[Markus Knauer]

I'd recommend to use a search string such as

  /stats/technology/epp/packages/mars/%feature%

which gives you some numbers about p2 installs of the EPP features, but I'm
unsure how accurate these numbers are because of the heavy caching in Oomph.

Thanks,
Markus



On 18 November 2015 at 22:28, Torkild Ulvøy Resheim 
wrote:

> Just curious; since Mars I’ve been using the Eclipse installer to do a
> dozen or so installations. How are these counted?
>
> Best regards,
> Torkild
> > 18. nov. 2015 kl. 18.39 skrev Marcel Bruch  >:
> >
> > Given Eike’s numbers, Mac users make 7 % of the downloads.
> > In the last 90 days they 'contributed' 15% of all error reports.
> > Not sure what you can take away from these numbers, though… :-)
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > [1] http://eclip.se/6b
> >
> >
> >> Am 18.11.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Eike Stepper :
> >>
> >> This is what I figured for Mars (incl. milestones):
> >>
> >> win32: 9,000,000
> >> macos: 740,000
> >> linux: 800,000
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> /Eike
> >>
> >> 
> >> http://www.esc-net.de
> >> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> >> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 18.11.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Denis Roy:
> >>> I do -- and so do you!
> >>>
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/committers/committertools/stats.php
> >>>
> >>> Start with a quary against download.eclipse.org and use file pattern:
> >>>
> >>> /technology/epp/%mars
> >>>
> >>> That should get you going.
> >>>
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/18/2015 09:52 AM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
>  Since there are discussions on improving SWT for specific platforms, I
>  think it would be interesting to see a rough percentage of the
> downloads
>  per platform.
>  Denis, would you have access to this?
> 
>  Thanks,
> 
>  Pascal
> >>> ___
> >>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> >>> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> >>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> >> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> >
> > --
> > Codetrails GmbH
> > The knowledge transfer company
> >
> > Robert-Bosch-Str. 7, 64293 Darmstadt
> > Phone: +49-6151-276-7092
> > Mobile: +49-179-131-7721
> > http://www.codetrails.com/
> >
> > Managing Director: Dr. Marcel Bruch
> > Handelsregister: Darmstadt HRB 91940
> >
> > ___
> > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> > cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Lars Vogel]

Great proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not make
sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to another
project I'm not a committer for.

Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?

Best regards, Lars
Am 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen" :

> On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:
>
> Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long ago.  I wasn't
>> able to push the IP committee beyond that.  People working for an
>> organization that has a corporate representative on the board could ask
>> that representative to raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that
>> would carry more weight than me personally asking for a further increase.
>>
>
> In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was found and
> identified.
>
> I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly taken part
> in why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc asciidoc support. Here
> I spent several weekends and eventually months on getting basic
> contributions in that was *obviously* not in any danger of having IP
> conflicts since the code was copied from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written
> by me - still I had to play the game of splitting up contributions and in
> the end just stop doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a
> committer or eclipse foundation allow contributions from other eclipse
> committers without CQ review - but that is just examples of more process
> dancing)
>
> Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and Legal team
> several time in the pass - issue is that from their perspective they don't
> get to see the times a committer is asked to split a contribution up; they
> just see the +1000 lines ones and think they are fast to get it though the
> system.
>
> But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things that are
> not on my critical path I just cannot afford spending time on it -
> especially if I have interest in building on top of these contributions.
> And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but I can
> just imagine those coming from the outside just never show up or just leave
> immediately.
>
> But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.
>
> If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system or see
> another attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect valid
> contributions, please consider forwarding me info personally (
> mande...@redhat.com).
>
> I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how often this
> is actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be convinced that is not
> actually that big an issue.
>
> Thanks,
> /max
>
>
>>
>> On 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the
>>> tests as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal
>>> effort.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable code
>>> such as tests and build tools.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>  Ed Willink
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 in the course of

 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328


 we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus needed
 a CQ.
 It took about one month to review it.

 I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load,
 so the following is in no way a criticism of the
 people who actually do the legal review.

 Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.

 IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives for
 a thriving opensource project.

 Here is why I think so:


 The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to
 prove it works.
 This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to
 thoroughly test.
 Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of
 LOC.
 However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you
 want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.
 Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish
 them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be 
 merged.
 Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because
 technically you can split up any commit into any number
 of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.

 Best Regards,
 Jan




 ___
 cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
 cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
 To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
 from this list, visit
 https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


>>> ___

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Fred Bricon]

See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=382798

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Lars Vogel  wrote:

> Great proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not
> make sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to another
> project I'm not a committer for.
>
> Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?
>
> Best regards, Lars
> Am 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen" <
> mande...@redhat.com>:
>
>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:
>>
>> Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long ago.  I
>>> wasn't able to push the IP committee beyond that.  People working for an
>>> organization that has a corporate representative on the board could ask
>>> that representative to raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that
>>> would carry more weight than me personally asking for a further increase.
>>>
>>
>> In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was found and
>> identified.
>>
>> I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly taken part
>> in why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc asciidoc support. Here
>> I spent several weekends and eventually months on getting basic
>> contributions in that was *obviously* not in any danger of having IP
>> conflicts since the code was copied from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written
>> by me - still I had to play the game of splitting up contributions and in
>> the end just stop doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a
>> committer or eclipse foundation allow contributions from other eclipse
>> committers without CQ review - but that is just examples of more process
>> dancing)
>>
>> Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and Legal team
>> several time in the pass - issue is that from their perspective they don't
>> get to see the times a committer is asked to split a contribution up; they
>> just see the +1000 lines ones and think they are fast to get it though the
>> system.
>>
>> But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things that are
>> not on my critical path I just cannot afford spending time on it -
>> especially if I have interest in building on top of these contributions.
>> And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but I can
>> just imagine those coming from the outside just never show up or just leave
>> immediately.
>>
>> But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.
>>
>> If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system or see
>> another attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect valid
>> contributions, please consider forwarding me info personally (
>> mande...@redhat.com).
>>
>> I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how often this
>> is actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be convinced that is not
>> actually that big an issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /max
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
>>>
 Hi

 Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the
 tests as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal
 effort.

 Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable
 code such as tests and build tools.

 Regards

  Ed Willink



 On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in the course of
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328
>
>
> we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus
> needed a CQ.
> It took about one month to review it.
>
> I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load,
> so the following is in no way a criticism of the
> people who actually do the legal review.
>
> Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.
>
> IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives
> for a thriving opensource project.
>
> Here is why I think so:
>
>
> The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to
> prove it works.
> This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to
> thoroughly test.
> Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of
> LOC.
> However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you
> want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.
> Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish
> them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be 
> merged.
> Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because
> technically you can split up any commit into any number
> of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jan
>
>
>
>
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> 

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[John Arthorne]

The "allow committers to contribute to other eclipse projects" topic is well underway in the Eclipse Board. There is a problem that some committers have written agreements from their employer that only allows them to participate on a particular project. The Foundation needs to put some automation in place to handle this, but there is a path forward here and progress is being made.John-cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org wrote: -To: Cross project issues From: Lars Vogel Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.orgDate: 11/20/2015 11:44AMSubject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributionsGreat proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not make sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to another project I'm not a committer for.Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?Best regards, LarsAm 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen" :On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long ago.  I wasn't able to push the IP committee beyond that.  People working for an organization that has a corporate representative on the board could ask that representative to raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that would carry more weight than me personally asking for a further increase.In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was found and identified.I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly taken part in why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc asciidoc support. Here I spent several weekends and eventually months on getting basic contributions in that was *obviously* not in any danger of having IP conflicts since the code was copied from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written by me - still I had to play the game of splitting up contributions and in the end just stop doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a committer or eclipse foundation allow contributions from other eclipse committers without CQ review - but that is just examples of more process dancing)Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and Legal team several time in the pass - issue is that from their perspective they don't get to see the times a committer is asked to split a contribution up; they just see the +1000 lines ones and think they are fast to get it though the system.But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things that are not on my critical path I just cannot afford spending time on it - especially if I have interest in building on top of these contributions.And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but I can just imagine those coming from the outside just never show up or just leave immediately.But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system or see another attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect valid contributions, please consider forwarding me info personally (mande...@redhat.com).I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how often this is actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be convinced that is not actually that big an issue.Thanks,/maxOn 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:HiPresumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the tests as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal effort.Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable code such as tests and build tools.Regards Ed WillinkOn 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:Hi,in the course ofhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus needed a CQ.It took about one month to review it.I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load, so the following is in no way a criticism of thepeople who actually do the legal review.Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives for a thriving opensource project.Here is why I think so:The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to prove it works.This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to thoroughly test.Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of LOC.However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be merged.Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because technically you can split up any commit into any numberof smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.Best Regards,Jan___cross-project-issues-dev mailing listcross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.orgTo 

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

Yes. This was agreed and approved last year if I recall. 

Legal wanted to check if the 70 or so committers that had limited status would 
be okey to go unlimited but apparently there are companies that want to limit 
their contributions :/

I just wish we could make this happen now for those that don't have this 
limited status.  
Even if it would be a manual lookup so 2 weeks could be reduced to a few days.

Been waiting a year for the automation to come in place. 

Denis, what's the holdup ? :)

/max
http://about.me/maxandersen


> On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:36, John Arthorne  wrote:
> 
> The "allow committers to contribute to other eclipse projects" topic is well 
> underway in the Eclipse Board. There is a problem that some committers have 
> written agreements from their employer that only allows them to participate 
> on a particular project. The Foundation needs to put some automation in place 
> to handle this, but there is a path forward here and progress is being made.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> -cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org wrote: -
> To: Cross project issues 
> From: Lars Vogel 
> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
> Date: 11/20/2015 11:44AM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions
> 
> Great proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not make 
> sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to another project 
> I'm not a committer for.
> 
> Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?
> 
> Best regards, Lars
> 
> Am 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen" :
>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:
>> 
>>> Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long ago.  I wasn't 
>>> able to push the IP committee beyond that.  People working for an 
>>> organization that has a corporate representative on the board could ask 
>>> that representative to raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that 
>>> would carry more weight than me personally asking for a further increase.
>> 
>> In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was found and 
>> identified.
>> 
>> I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly taken part in 
>> why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc asciidoc support. Here I 
>> spent several weekends and eventually months on getting basic contributions 
>> in that was *obviously* not in any danger of having IP conflicts since the 
>> code was copied from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written by me - still I had 
>> to play the game of splitting up contributions and in the end just stop 
>> doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a committer or eclipse 
>> foundation allow contributions from other eclipse committers without CQ 
>> review - but that is just examples of more process dancing)
>> 
>> Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and Legal team 
>> several time in the pass - issue is that from their perspective they don't 
>> get to see the times a committer is asked to split a contribution up; they 
>> just see the +1000 lines ones and think they are fast to get it though the 
>> system.
>> 
>> But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things that are not 
>> on my critical path I just cannot afford spending time on it - especially if 
>> I have interest in building on top of these contributions.
>> And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but I can 
>> just imagine those coming from the outside just never show up or just leave 
>> immediately.
>> 
>> But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.
>> 
>> If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system or see 
>> another attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect valid contributions, 
>> please consider forwarding me info personally (mande...@redhat.com).
>> 
>> I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how often this is 
>> actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be convinced that is not actually 
>> that big an issue.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> /max
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
 Hi
 
 Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the tests 
 as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal effort.
 
 Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable code 
 such as tests and build tools.
 
 Regards
 
  Ed Willink
 
 
 
> On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> in the course of
> 
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328
> 
> 
> we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus needed a 
> CQ.
> It took about one month to review it.
> 
> I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load, so 
> the following is in no way a 

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Christian Campo]

+1

Gruß

Christian

Am 20.11.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Lars Vogel 
>:


Great proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not make 
sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to another project 
I'm not a committer for.

Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?

Best regards, Lars

Am 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen" 
>:
On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:

Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long ago.  I wasn't able 
to push the IP committee beyond that.  People working for an organization that 
has a corporate representative on the board could ask that representative to 
raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that would carry more weight than 
me personally asking for a further increase.

In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was found and 
identified.

I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly taken part in why 
I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc asciidoc support. Here I spent 
several weekends and eventually months on getting basic contributions in that 
was *obviously* not in any danger of having IP conflicts since the code was 
copied from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written by me - still I had to play the 
game of splitting up contributions and in the end just stop doing it. 
(mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a committer or eclipse foundation allow 
contributions from other eclipse committers without CQ review - but that is 
just examples of more process dancing)

Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and Legal team 
several time in the pass - issue is that from their perspective they don't get 
to see the times a committer is asked to split a contribution up; they just see 
the +1000 lines ones and think they are fast to get it though the system.

But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things that are not on 
my critical path I just cannot afford spending time on it - especially if I 
have interest in building on top of these contributions.
And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but I can just 
imagine those coming from the outside just never show up or just leave 
immediately.

But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.

If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system or see another 
attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect valid contributions, please 
consider forwarding me info personally 
(mande...@redhat.com).

I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how often this is 
actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be convinced that is not actually 
that big an issue.

Thanks,
/max



On 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi

Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the tests as a 
separate contribution gets you twice the limit with minimal effort.

Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable code such 
as tests and build tools.

Regards

 Ed Willink



On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:
Hi,

in the course of

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328


we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus needed a CQ.
It took about one month to review it.

I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the load, so the 
following is in no way a criticism of the
people who actually do the legal review.

Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.

IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives for a 
thriving opensource project.

Here is why I think so:


The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to prove it 
works.
This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to thoroughly test.
Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms of LOC.
However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you want to 
attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.
Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish them with 
an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be merged.
Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because technically 
you can split up any commit into any number
of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.

Best Regards,
Jan




___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, 

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Denis Roy]

On 11/20/2015 01:42 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> Denis, what's the holdup ? :)

There's no bug? With Legal's sign-off?

"Have fingers, will code."

D.




> 
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen
> 
> 
> On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:36, John Arthorne  > wrote:
> 
>> The "allow committers to contribute to other eclipse projects" topic
>> is well underway in the Eclipse Board. There is a problem that some
>> committers have written agreements from their employer that only
>> allows them to participate on a particular project. The Foundation
>> needs to put some automation in place to handle this, but there is a
>> path forward here and progress is being made.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> -cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
>>  wrote: -
>> To: Cross project issues > >
>> From: Lars Vogel
>> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
>> 
>> Date: 11/20/2015 11:44AM
>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions
>>
>> Great proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not
>> make sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to
>> another project I'm not a committer for.
>>
>> Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?
>>
>> Best regards, Lars
>>
>> Am 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen"
>> >:
>>
>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:
>>
>> Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long
>> ago.  I wasn't able to push the IP committee beyond that. 
>> People working for an organization that has a corporate
>> representative on the board could ask that representative to
>> raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that would carry
>> more weight than me personally asking for a further increase.
>>
>>
>> In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was
>> found and identified.
>>
>> I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly
>> taken part in why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc
>> asciidoc support. Here I spent several weekends and eventually
>> months on getting basic contributions in that was *obviously* not
>> in any danger of having IP conflicts since the code was copied
>> from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written by me - still I had to play
>> the game of splitting up contributions and in the end just stop
>> doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a committer or
>> eclipse foundation allow contributions from other eclipse
>> committers without CQ review - but that is just examples of more
>> process dancing)
>>
>> Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and
>> Legal team several time in the pass - issue is that from their
>> perspective they don't get to see the times a committer is asked
>> to split a contribution up; they just see the +1000 lines ones and
>> think they are fast to get it though the system.
>>
>> But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things
>> that are not on my critical path I just cannot afford spending
>> time on it - especially if I have interest in building on top of
>> these contributions.
>> And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but
>> I can just imagine those coming from the outside just never show
>> up or just leave immediately.
>>
>> But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.
>>
>> If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system
>> or see another attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect
>> valid contributions, please consider forwarding me info personally
>> (mande...@redhat.com ).
>>
>> I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how
>> often this is actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be
>> convinced that is not actually that big an issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /max
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so
>> splitting off the tests as a separate contribution gets
>> you twice the limit with minimal effort.
>>
>> Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for
>> non-deliverable code such as tests and build tools.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>  Ed Willink
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in the course of
>>
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328
>>
>>
>> we had a 

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Known outage?

[Konstantin Komissarchik]

See Sapphire HIPP. The failure is seen consistently.

Konstantin Komissarchik
Senior Development Manager
Eclipse Tools Group
Oracle

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 11:26, Matthew Ward(Bt. Kt. SSA.)  
> wrote:
> 
> I'm tracking a transient issue with DNS resolution, but it's proving
> difficult to pin down.
> 
> -Matt.
> 
>> On 11/20/2015 02:12 PM, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
>> Is there a known outage at eclipse.org where HIPP instances cannot reach the 
>> download server and both HIPP and Bugzilla fail while sending mail? Note 
>> that the download server appears accessible externally.
>> 
>> Konstantin Komissarchik
>> Senior Development Manager
>> Eclipse Tools Group
>> Oracle
>> ___
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
>> this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> 
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

Janet / Mike - can we make that happen ?

Or at least get the bug updated with what is standing in the way for Denis to 
attack this as the beast he say he is ?

/max
http://about.me/maxandersen


> On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:58, Denis Roy  wrote:
> 
>> On 11/20/2015 01:54 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=382798
>> 
>> I believe that is the bug and what I was told on every board meeting since I 
>> joined was that it's just waiting on automation.
> 
> The bug is opened against EMO (Community > Process).  Legal would need
> to assign that bug to webmas...@eclipse.org and instruct us to do something.
> 
> Not that I don't trust you   :)
> 
> D.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Denis - I'll sit back and applaud your magic :)
>> 
>> /max
>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>> 
>> 
 On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:45, Denis Roy  wrote:
 
 On 11/20/2015 01:42 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
 Denis, what's the holdup ? :)
>>> 
>>> There's no bug? With Legal's sign-off?
>>> 
>>> "Have fingers, will code."
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 /max
 http://about.me/maxandersen
 
 
 On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:36, John Arthorne > wrote:
 
> The "allow committers to contribute to other eclipse projects" topic
> is well underway in the Eclipse Board. There is a problem that some
> committers have written agreements from their employer that only
> allows them to participate on a particular project. The Foundation
> needs to put some automation in place to handle this, but there is a
> path forward here and progress is being made.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> -cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
>  wrote: -
> To: Cross project issues  >
> From: Lars Vogel
> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
> 
> Date: 11/20/2015 11:44AM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions
> 
> Great proposal from Max to skip CQ for Eclipse committers. It does not
> make sense that I can commit 100 000 lines to PDE but not 1001 to
> another project I'm not a committer for.
> 
> Max, can you bring your proposal to the board?
> 
> Best regards, Lars
> 
> Am 20.11.2015 9:00 vorm. schrieb "Max Rydahl Andersen"
> >:
> 
>   On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:
> 
>   Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long
>   ago.  I wasn't able to push the IP committee beyond that. 
>   People working for an organization that has a corporate
>   representative on the board could ask that representative to
>   raise this issue at a board meeting.  I think that would carry
>   more weight than me personally asking for a further increase.
> 
> 
>   In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was
>   found and identified.
> 
>   I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly
>   taken part in why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc
>   asciidoc support. Here I spent several weekends and eventually
>   months on getting basic contributions in that was *obviously* not
>   in any danger of having IP conflicts since the code was copied
>   from mylyn.doc itself and 100% written by me - still I had to play
>   the game of splitting up contributions and in the end just stop
>   doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix this by making me a committer or
>   eclipse foundation allow contributions from other eclipse
>   committers without CQ review - but that is just examples of more
>   process dancing)
> 
>   Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and
>   Legal team several time in the pass - issue is that from their
>   perspective they don't get to see the times a committer is asked
>   to split a contribution up; they just see the +1000 lines ones and
>   think they are fast to get it though the system.
> 
>   But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things
>   that are not on my critical path I just cannot afford spending
>   time on it - especially if I have interest in building on top of
>   these contributions.
>   And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but
>   I can just imagine those coming from the outside just never show
>   up or just leave immediately.
> 
>   But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.
> 
>   If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP 

[cross-project-issues-dev] Known outage?

[Konstantin Komissarchik]

Is there a known outage at eclipse.org where HIPP instances cannot reach the 
download server and both HIPP and Bugzilla fail while sending mail? Note that 
the download server appears accessible externally.

Konstantin Komissarchik
Senior Development Manager
Eclipse Tools Group
Oracle
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 1000 line limit for contributions

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:17, Ed Merks wrote:

Recall that this was increased from 250 to 1000 not so long ago.  I 
wasn't able to push the IP committee beyond that.  People working for 
an organization that has a corporate representative on the board could 
ask that representative to raise this issue at a board meeting.  I 
think that would carry more weight than me personally asking for a 
further increase.


In this case it looks like a broken notification - good it was found and 
identified.


I can personally vouch that the 1000 line limit have directly taken part 
in why I have stopped contributing to i.e. mylyndoc asciidoc support. 
Here I spent several weekends and eventually months on getting basic 
contributions in that was *obviously* not in any danger of having IP 
conflicts since the code was copied from mylyn.doc itself and 100% 
written by me - still I had to play the game of splitting up 
contributions and in the end just stop doing it. (mylyn.doc could fix 
this by making me a committer or eclipse foundation allow contributions 
from other eclipse committers without CQ review - but that is just 
examples of more process dancing)


Thus this really is an issue and something I raised to IP and Legal team 
several time in the pass - issue is that from their perspective they 
don't get to see the times a committer is asked to split a contribution 
up; they just see the +1000 lines ones and think they are fast to get it 
though the system.


But If I have to wait 2 weeks between contributions for things that are 
not on my critical path I just cannot afford spending time on it - 
especially if I have interest in building on top of these contributions.
And I'm actually a believer in doing things right at eclipse - but I can 
just imagine those coming from the outside just never show up or just 
leave immediately.


But to the point on raising this to the IP committee and the board.

If you get caught in similar dead or live-locks in the IP system or see 
another attempt on having to split up otherwise perfect valid 
contributions, please consider forwarding me info personally 
(mande...@redhat.com).


I would like to be able to show to IP committee and board how often this 
is actually hurting us - or on the flip side, be convinced that is not 
actually that big an issue.


Thanks,
/max




On 19/11/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Willink wrote:

Hi

Presumably you put tests in a separate plugin, so splitting off the 
tests as a separate contribution gets you twice the limit with 
minimal effort.


Perhaps a 1 line limit might be appropriate for non-deliverable 
code such as tests and build tools.


Regards

 Ed Willink



On 19/11/2015 09:49, Sievers, Jan wrote:

Hi,

in the course of

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=477328


we had a contribution that slightly exceeded 1000 lines and thus 
needed a CQ.

It took about one month to review it.

I am sure the legal team does its very best to keep up with the 
load, so the following is in no way a criticism of the

people who actually do the legal review.

Rather take it as food for thought to whoever set up this rule.

IMHO the 1000 line rule is effectively setting the wrong incentives 
for a thriving opensource project.


Here is why I think so:


The most diligent contributors add a lot of tests to their patch to 
prove it works.
This is a good thing and we actively encourage contributors to 
thoroughly test.
Test code can easily outweigh productive code being tested in terms 
of LOC.
However this means the most diligent contributors, i.e. the ones you 
want to attract, are more likely to hit the 1000 line limit.
Instead of thanking them for their hard work, we effectively punish 
them with an extra month or more wait time before their patch can be 
merged.
Apart from that, the 1000 line limit seems arbitrary to me because 
technically you can split up any commit into any number

of smaller commits below the 1000 line limit.

Best Regards,
Jan




___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev



___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev



/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list