Community
Participate
Working Groups
We anticipate request for a restructuring review that will see the creation of an incubator for Nebula. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/nebula-dev/msg01397.html
What's the status on the restructuring review? Ready to schedule?
Sure! Let's push this. Give us a few days to get everything together. Thanks for the hint. How is the NatTable proposal coming along?
(In reply to comment #2) > Sure! Let's push this. Give us a few days to get everything together. Thanks > for the hint. How is the NatTable proposal coming along? We're waiting on the trademark review/assignment before we start the creation review. While these reviews are related, AFAICT there's no reason to block one because of the other.
NatTable exists. Is it time to revive this effort?
It was never dead. The proposal is finished as far as I'm concerned. Committer list is cleaned and committers are assigned to each project. Tom? http://wiki.eclipse.org/Nebula/restructure#Nebula_Project_Restructuring_Proposal
Moving forward. Review is scheduled to conclude on September 12/2012.
The review has concluded successfully. The next step is to capture the steps that are required for the restructure in a bug, copying the webmaster and Sharon Corbett so that they can assist with the movement of repositories, code, bugs, CQs, etc. You can just add a comment to this bug, or you can create a bug under Nebula if you want to track the restructuring there. Additionally, since the restructuring results in the creation of a new incubator subproject, you'll need to complete a new project provisioning request [1] Note that the NatTable subproject has concluded a 0.9 Release review today. [1] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project_provisioning_request.php?id=technology.nebula.incubator
(In reply to comment #7) > The next step is to capture the steps that are required for the restructure in a > bug, copying the webmaster and Sharon Corbett so that they can assist with the > movement of repositories, code, bugs, CQs, etc. You can just add a comment to > this bug, or you can create a bug under Nebula if you want to track the > restructuring there. Did this happen yet? If yes, can you cite the bug number?
Let's just use this bug for that. Nebula incubation and Nebula will combine: website mailing list forum The hudson build jobs have already been setup. We do need a new download location (nebula.incubation) new git repository (nebula.incubation) Is it possible to have a project called nebula and an incubator called nebula.incubation? Do we clash with the namespace e.g. for the download area? About the list of committers for the new incubation project. I have their names, but not their e-mail addresses. Is there a way, being the project lead, to get a list of e-mail addresses or do I need to harvest them on bugzilla and from the mailing list. I have searched myfoundation but I have only found names, not email addresses.
(In reply to comment #9) > Let's just use this bug for that. > > Nebula incubation and Nebula will combine: > > website > mailing list > forum All of these exist, so there's nothing to do here. > > The hudson build jobs have already been setup. > > We do need a > > new download location (nebula.incubation) > new git repository (nebula.incubation) The convention seems to be to put an "incubator" directory under the main project directory (owned by the incubator group). e.g. [downloads]/technology/nebula/incubator/ and /gitroot/nebula/incubator/ > > Is it possible to have a project called nebula and an incubator called > nebula.incubation? Do we clash with the namespace e.g. for the download area? We've already created a project named technology.nebula.incubator > About the list of committers for the new incubation project. I have their > names, but not their e-mail addresses. Is there a way, being the project > lead, to get a list of e-mail addresses or do I need to harvest them on > bugzilla and from the mailing list. I have searched myfoundation but I have > only found names, not email addresses. There are privacy concerns which seem curious to me given the nature of Git and Bugzilla. There's probably a Git command for this...
> > We've already created a project named technology.nebula.incubator Incubator is fine with me. Excellent, so we are set then?
From an IP perspective, we will need to understand what happens to the committers currently associated with the Tech Nebula project? As well, do all CQs currently aligned with Tech Nebula move to the incubator project? Thanks, Sharon
(In reply to comment #12) > From an IP perspective, we will need to understand what happens to the > committers currently associated with the Tech Nebula project? As well, do > all CQs currently aligned with Tech Nebula move to the incubator project? All the committers are set on both Tech Nebula as on Tech Nebula Incubator. There are no changes to be done. Some of the components move to incubator. The rest will stay. The list of components that move to incubator are: BidiLayout Radio Group Collapsible Buttons Date Chooser Formatted Text Nebula Toolbar TreeMapper GeoMap Picture Control Pagination Control CTree
Hi Wim: I don't see a one-to-one correlation between all the components listed and the CQs...Rather than make an error, can you please list the CQ numbers? Thanks, Sharon
(In reply to comment #14) > Hi Wim: > > I don't see a one-to-one correlation between all the components listed and > the CQs...Rather than make an error, can you please list the CQ numbers? > > Thanks, > Sharon I would love to, but I have no idea how to do it. FYI, the listed projects in #13 stay in incubator mode. It is the other widgets that mature. Are you looking for the CQ's of the incubator components or the CQ's of the widgets that will be graduating.
Correct, I'm looking for the CQs that represent content to be moved to the Incubator Project. Thanks, Sharon
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Hi Wim: > > > > I don't see a one-to-one correlation between all the components listed and > > the CQs...Rather than make an error, can you please list the CQ numbers? > > > > I would love to, but I have no idea how to do it. > I still don't know how to match the components to their CQ's. Was this not registered when the CQ was filed?
(In reply to comment #17) > I still don't know how to match the components to their CQ's. Was this not > registered when the CQ was filed? IPZilla has no concept of components within Nebula. It only knows that some number of CQs are assigned to the technology.nebula project. (In reply to comment #13) Using some pattern matching, I believe that these are the CQs that we're looking for. > BidiLayout CQ 4304 > Radio Group CQ 3204 > Collapsible Buttons CQ 1609 *** This CQ contains the IP for several components, some of which are staying in Nebula. I think this CQ should probably just stay where it is. > Date Chooser > Formatted Text CQ 1143 > Nebula Toolbar CQ 3871 > TreeMapper CQ 5797 > GeoMap CQ 6396, CQ 6397 *** Wim, please confirm that MapWidget and GeoMap are the same thing. > Picture Control CQ 5906 > Pagination Control CQ 5924 > CTree *** Not sure about this one. Could be CQ 5797, or CQ 3206.
(In reply to comment #18) > > GeoMap > > CQ 6396, CQ 6397 *** Wim, please confirm that MapWidget and GeoMap are the > same thing. Confirmed. (In reply to comment #18) > Pattern matching You mean you searched IPZilla? or is there more to it.
> (In reply to comment #18) > > Pattern matching > > You mean you searched IPZilla? or is there more to it. I got a listing of all the CQs for Nebula and manually matched the summaries up to the component names.
Ok I think Webmasters tasks are done. -M.
1. CQs CQs have been moved as per the direction provided here. The only CQ quandary remaining is: > CTree *** Not sure about this one. Could be CQ 5797, or CQ 3206. If CQ 3206 needs to be moved as well, please just make that request via the CQ directly. 2. Committers Committers appear to remain active and aligned on Technology Nebula. If Nebula itself is being decommissioned, we will need those committers deactivated accordingly. Thanks, Sharon
(In reply to comment #22) > > Committers appear to remain active and aligned on Technology Nebula. If > Nebula itself is being decommissioned, we will need those committers > deactivated accordingly. Nebula will remain active. This restructuring introduced a new incubator subproject only.
(In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #22) > > > > > Committers appear to remain active and aligned on Technology Nebula. If > > Nebula itself is being decommissioned, we will need those committers > > deactivated accordingly. > > Nebula will remain active. This restructuring introduced a new incubator > subproject only. And I believe Nebula itself will graduate, correct? Or is that implied?
(In reply to comment #24) > And I believe Nebula itself will graduate, correct? Or is that implied? We normally do graduations as part of a 1.0 release review. Does this statement from the restructuring review imply that a release review was combined: > The objective of the restructuring is that Nebula releases those > supplementary components in a 1.0 release to foster adoption in commercial > and opensource projects. If so, then I completely missed it. There are separate requirements for a release review. Minimally, we need to have some 1.0 release milestone builds and an IP Log. Did I miss something?
(In reply to comment #25) > (In reply to comment #24) > > And I believe Nebula itself will graduate, correct? Or is that implied? > > We normally do graduations as part of a 1.0 release review. Does this > statement from the restructuring review imply that a release review was > combined: > > > The objective of the restructuring is that Nebula releases those > > supplementary components in a 1.0 release to foster adoption in commercial > > and opensource projects. > > If so, then I completely missed it. > Yes, that was the plan. I think we cover most of the stuff in [1]: [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Reviews
(In reply to comment #26) > Yes, that was the plan. I think we cover most of the stuff in [1]: > > [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Reviews Is there a build process producing distributable bits? Where are the milestone builds?
(In reply to comment #27) > (In reply to comment #26) > > Yes, that was the plan. I think we cover most of the stuff in [1]: > > > > [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Reviews > > Is there a build process producing distributable bits? Where are the > milestone builds? O yes! We have a complete integration build [1]. We even have sonar in place. Our bits are in marketplace and we have already split our release and incubator builds [2] [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Nebula_Builds#Hudson [2] http://www.eclipse.org/nebula/downloads.php
(In reply to comment #28) > O yes! We have a complete integration build [1]. We even have sonar in > place. Our bits are in marketplace and we have already split our release and > incubator builds [2] I see it now. FWIW, when I last visited the page, I noticed that it looked similar to a past version that explained why there weren't downloads available. Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly. Regardless, we can fix this... Please change the links for the ZIP downloads to use the download script [1] (that way the mirrors will be engaged and we can track download counts). Note that you shouldn't use this for the p2 repository; p2 will do this automatically. Please also submit your IP log. I don't anticipate any problems with the log review, so that should go pretty quickly. As soon as we get the IP Log back from the IP team, I'll mark the project as 1.0/graduated. [1]http://wiki.eclipse.org/IT_Infrastructure_Doc#Use_mirror_sites.2Fsee_which_mirrors_are_mirroring_my_files.3F
> Please change the links for the ZIP downloads to use the download script [1] > (that way the mirrors will be engaged and we can track download counts). > Note that you shouldn't use this for the p2 repository; p2 will do this > automatically. > [1]http://wiki.eclipse.org/IT_Infrastructure_Doc#Use_mirror_sites. > 2Fsee_which_mirrors_are_mirroring_my_files.3F Mickael can you take a stab at this?
Request to change URLs for zip files is tracked on bug 393556 . However, I'm not sure where exactly this has to be done. Wayne, can you please add some details to bug 393556 ?
(In reply to comment #31) > Request to change URLs for zip files is tracked on bug 393556 . > However, I'm not sure where exactly this has to be done. Wayne, can you > please add some details to bug 393556 ? Done
I believe that our work here is done.
(In reply to comment #33) > I believe that our work here is done. Does this mean that Nebula is now graduated? Or do we still need a 1.0 release review?
(In reply to comment #34) > Does this mean that Nebula is now graduated? Or do we still need a 1.0 > release review? My mistake. Per comment #29, please submit your IP Log. Once that's approved, we'll wrap this up.
Did this ever get resolved?
(In reply to comment #36) > Did this ever get resolved? Yes it did! You helped us clear out the ip problems.
I don't see the IP Log. Did that get submitted? I don't see any 1.0 downloads and the incubation logo still appears in the downloads page. Are you sure we're done here?
You are right. Let me try to finish this: http://eclipse.org/projects/tools/ip_contribution_review.php?id=technology.nebula Any hints on what really needs to be done before I can submit? Can I also flag with iplog - if the code is no longer used or not used? Does this remove it from the list:
(In reply to comment #39) > You are right. Let me try to finish this: > > http://eclipse.org/projects/tools/ip_contribution_review.php?id=technology. > nebula > > Any hints on what really needs to be done before I can submit? Unfortunately, the tool only identifies potential contributions. Attachment 86107 [details], for example, is attached to Bug 214242 which has a comment that indicates that the patch was committed. That patch should be marked iplog+ I was going to take care of that one, but I see that you beat me. > Can I also flag with iplog - if the code is no longer used or not used? Does > this remove it from the list: Yes, items marked iplog- will drop from the list. FWIW, all future contributions should come through Git which takes care of this automatically by virtue of the author's credentials being stored directly in the commit.
Thanks. Working through the list. Do I need to set additional flags like review +
(In reply to comment #41) > Thanks. Working through the list. Do I need to set additional flags like > review + The IP log only cares about the iplog+ flag. Other flags have project-specific meaning.
Done, i think the list is in good shape now.
What is our status?
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie.
Closing. -M.
