Community
Participate
Working Groups
Even though EclipseLab is different than Eclipse.org, given that we are looking for some cross pollination between the two, I think it would be interesting to bring some concepts of IP cleanliness across. For example, it could be interesting if projects could have the possibility to easily track the contributions made to it such that if an eclipse project wanted to consume things out of the lab, the IP process would be "simplified". Obviously this is still very fuzzy and I'm not quite sure what this means, it maybe enough to start with the iplog flag next to a patch in the bug tracking system.
I think it's important to not mix up "Eclipse Labs" with "Eclipse Incubation". Eclipse Labs is a hosting service for projects that like to take advantage of the Eclipse brand but don't need *any* kind of Eclipse service. In particular, they neither want the Eclipse bug tracker, any Eclipse SCM nor the Eclipse IP process. If any Eclipse Labs project wants to contribute something to an Eclipse.org project then it's nothing different than a regular external contribution. Our IP process can handle these contributions very well. BTW, I'm not sure if you are familiar with Google Code hosting. They do provide a good bug tracker which allows to establish your own custom process around contributions. However, we can not enforce Eclipse Lab projects to adopt (even partially) the EDP. It's up to the projects themselves.
I am not sure where you want to take this? The idea of Eclipse Labs is to have a place with no process. If people want process they should come to the Foundation?
I did not mean to enforce anything or force the eclipse process there, nor do I talk of sharing infrastructure. I want to promote good practices that make it easy to consume open source. Here what I have in mind does not go any further that providing in the out of the box infrastructure at eclipselab a way to help ppl track their contributions in a meaningful and consumable way (if they chose to), so that when a corporation or the foundation is wondering if something can be integrated into a product, it is then easier. Having run through the IP process with SAT4J, I think we would have all (the author, the IP staff and myself) found it easier if SAT4J had in place some sort of way to track contributions.
(In reply to comment #3) > I did not mean to enforce anything or force the eclipse process there, nor do I > talk of sharing infrastructure. I want to promote good practices that make it > easy to consume open source. > > Here what I have in mind does not go any further that providing in the out of > the box infrastructure at eclipselab a way to help ppl track their > contributions in a meaningful and consumable way (if they chose to), so that > when a corporation or the foundation is wondering if something can be > integrated into a product, it is then easier. > > Having run through the IP process with SAT4J, I think we would have all (the > author, the IP staff and myself) found it easier if SAT4J had in place some > sort of way to track contributions. I hear what you are saying but please remember this is a Google service that they provide for thousands and thousands of open source projects. Eclipse Labs is just an extension of that infrastructure so asking for Eclipse specific extentions is not an easy sell. Also, as Gunnar pointed out they alreayd have a bug tracking system, so motivated projects can practice safe open source development. :-)
