Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
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] 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 To:'Cross project issues' 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 _ 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 mailto:konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com To:'Cross project issues' mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org 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: mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 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: mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 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
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
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 konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com 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:* 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 To:'Cross project issues' 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 -- 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.orgcross-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 To:'Cross project issues' cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org, Date:08/01/2013 02:18 PM Subject:Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
I agree that it is desirable to minimize the number of must do rules and those that are there should be enforced, but a should do regarding source bundles would do a lot for projects who are frankly uncertain as to what they should do in this area. Thanks, - Konstantin From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Ian Bull Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:14 AM To: Cross project issues Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo 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 konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com 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: 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 To:'Cross project issues' 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 _ 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
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
I think this illustrates quite well the trouble of leaving such decisions to projects, without even providing guidance as to what’s recommended. 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 To:'Cross project issues' 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 _ 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 mailto:konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com To:'Cross project issues' mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org 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: mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 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
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
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
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
For the ultimate edition, I do think the source code for everything should be included or it will not make a good target for plugin developers. From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Rapicault Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:15 AM To: Cross project issues Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo Out of curiosity, do you intend for this package to include the source code? From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik Sent: August-01-13 12:58 PM To: 'Cross project issues' Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo 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-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Source code in simrel aggregate repo
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] 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 To:'Cross project issues' 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 _ 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-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev 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
