[jbosstools-dev] Eclipse process vs just OSS RE: Nodeclipse IDE (or components) in JBoss Tools?

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On 22 May 2014, at 12:15, Paul Verest wrote:

> Hi Michael
>
> Just want to add that Eclipse is regarded by some as some overhead.

yes, and if you don't want to do that overhead you can't expect to be 
integrated
in overall solutions. That is fine and complete fair to say.

> Maybe simple explanation and success example can show that it s easy.

vert.x is at eclipse now - yes, there is overhead but github is used for 
contributions.

> (Especially with cases when code/interactions continues to be on 
> GitHub)
> And that would be one more nice addition to what is missing on 
> eclipse.org site.

What page are you looking at where this is not highlighted enough ?

> Contributing on GitHub I myself ran into situation when PR are not 
> even commented for a month or two.

Yes? that is same wether in or outside eclipse. It is wether there are 
people working actively enough on projects.

/max
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:35:29 +0200
> From: mistria at redhat.com
> To: paul.verest at live.com; angelo.zerr at gmail.com
> CC: jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [jbosstools-dev] Nodeclipse IDE (or components) in JBoss 
> Tools?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Hi Paul,
>
>
>
>    On 05/20/2014 12:09 PM, Paul Verest wrote:
>
>
>
>
>    I suggest to lobby that Eclipse would recognize
>      non-Eclipse.org projects under EPL license as valuable part of
>      Eclipse eco-system
>
>  MarketPlace was done to fulfill this goal and it works pretty well.
>  Some non Eclipse.org project have been pretty successful thanks to
>  MarketPlace and MarketPlace client. I think those should thank the
>  Foundation for that.
>
>
>
>
>
>      that Eclipse project committers should be aware of, give
>        and take help.
>      e.g. https://github.com/eclipse-color-theme/eclipse-color-theme
>
>
>
>
>  The issue with the multiplication of projects out of Eclipse.org is
>  that you end up with different process to contribute and don't have
>  the guarantee a contribution would be appreciated and considered.
>  Being on GitHub is not a proof of an open development process, it's
>  "just" OSS code. That's why it makes sense for
>  contributors/consumers (like us) to encourage projects to become
>  official Eclipse projects. Eclipse Foundation has set up rules that
>  ensure a really open development process and that guarantee that a
>  project can't be locked, and that encourage contributions over
>  forks. It makes things safer.
>
>
>
>
>
>      Something like open letter from Eclipse Foundation to
>        Eclipse plugins authors.
>
>
>  That's probably a good idea.
>
>  Maybe the Foundation (or the community in general) should make it
>  more official that projects on GitHub/MarketPlace are welcome to
>  become official Eclipse projects and explain to authors that being
>  an Eclipse.org project is a sign of real openness and a generator of
>  success.
>
>
>
>  But in any way, I can fully understand from the Foundation POV and
>  from our "consumer" POV, that there is and will always be a
>  distinction between Eclipse.org and non-Eclipse.org projects. The
>  Foundation rules are definitely something good, that make a
>  difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        Please also help to connect to Red Hat China managers or
>          marketing.
>
>
>
>  Unfortunately, I don't know anyone in Red Hat office in China. Maybe
>  Rob (Stryker) can help.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        @Angelo Would this email get into jbosstools-dev list?
>
>
>
>  Yes, it's on. And this answer too. Check you CC list before sending
>  mails ;)
>
>  --
>
>    Mickael Istria
>
>    Eclipse developer at JBoss,
>      by Red Hat
>
>    My blog - My Tweets 		 	   
> 		_______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev


/max
http://about.me/maxandersen