Yes, I did not mean to suggest that you/we should not have or continue
to have the discussion here about the impact on the platform.
But of course the impact is much broader than the platform, so I'm
highly likely to rapidly degrade into a very long, tangential, and
poisonous rant about the four projects, the three builds, and the dozens
of build jobs that I manage for free, as a one-man traveling show,
purely for the entertainment and gratification of others. As such, I am
just beside myself with eagerness to revisit it all in order save
someone else some time and to live a world based purely on the latest
greatness of consolidation.
On 18.12.2020 10:42, Mickael Istria wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:34 AM Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com
<mailto:ed.me...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I've already sent a note to the board raising the topic of
"Disruptive Infrastructure Changes".
There's just so much wrong about this and about the way this was
announced that it's hard to remain completely professional. So
I'll refrain from ranting and saying things I'll no doubt regret
later.
Thanks Ed for voicing concerns to the EF in committers' name.
I think we can and should keep chatting here about the suggested
change for Eclipse project specifically, identify the technical needs
other infrastructures wouldn't meet and the induced change cost,
operational cost, risk vs the things that seem affordable or
profitable in the infra change. I think this discussion in beneficial
for the Eclipse project itself, but will also help EF in identifying
what specific parts of the infra change are actually more challenging
for committers so the plans can adapt accordingly.
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
