Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] bad gateway

[Doug Schaefer]

I'm connecting but it's brutally slow.

On 13-07-18 10:43 PM, "Greg Watson"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm getting "Bad Gateway" messages when I try to access hudson. Is
>anybody else seeing this?
>
>Greg
>___
>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
>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

[cross-project-issues-dev] bad gateway

[Greg Watson]

Hi,

I'm getting "Bad Gateway" messages when I try to access hudson. Is anybody else 
seeing this?

Greg
___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[David M Williams]

> In addition, the key resources that we have supporting the 
> simultaneous release process like David and Markus are, in fact, 
> supported by member companies.  And as far as I know, they are 
> tapped out. I do not think that we can realistically ask them to do 
> more. And if we want them to do something different, I for one would
> prefer to hear from them what they would like to change. Maybe I'm 
> wrong, and they would be perfectly happy to push out two release 
> trains a year (for example)

Since I've "heard" my name mentioned a few times in these discussion, I 
thought should explicitly say I am intentionally trying to stay neutral. 
I believe Ian (explicitly) and Doug (implicitly) were going to bring some 
proposals to the Planning Council and that's where we can hear their 
concrete proposals and get reactions from all the PMC reps, and Strategic 
Member representatives and decide if any changes are in order. 
[But, yes, if their proposal centers on "let's get David and Markus to do 
more work", pretty sure the answer will be "no" :) ] 

But, not to worry, I have been closely following the discussion (and 
writing down the name of volunteers  :) 





From:   "Mike Milinkovich" 
To: , 
Date:   07/17/2013 04:14 PM
Subject:Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was 
touched in  "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)
Sent by:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org




> I'm not sure why we're always expecting companies to drop bus loads of
> developers into projects when we have a pretty healthy individual 
contributor
> community already at Eclipse. In fact, over half of CDT contributions of 
late are
> coming from individuals, not companies. And it's really coming from 
users who
> have the skills to contribute back and not only make their lives better, 
but others
> as well, and get rewarded by seeing their work on the big stage.

That is really good news for CDT. I wish we had a lot more projects that 
were in your position. But the flip side is that the platform is not in 
that position today. Others will have to speak to what it will take to get 
to a position as enviable as CDT's. 

In addition, the key resources that we have supporting the simultaneous 
release process like David and Markus are, in fact, supported by member 
companies.  And as far as I know, they are tapped out. I do not think that 
we can realistically ask them to do more. And if we want them to do 
something different, I for one would prefer to hear from them what they 
would like to change. Maybe I'm wrong, and they would be perfectly happy 
to push out two release trains a year (for example).

> So really, the changes I'm talking about, more frequent release cycles, 
creating a
> list of features and bugs we'd like fixed, is aimed at attracting more 
individuals to
> the party. And I'm pretty sure there are some companies who would like 
to see
> the same. Create the buzz and companies may take another look.

We are certainly agreed about the need to attract more contributors of all 
types. The Eclipse Foundation has also been pushing this agenda for the 
last couple of years. Embracing git, implementing CBI, project hosting at 
GitHub, and switching to CLAs are all examples of things that we did 
specifically to help reduce barriers to contribution. 

I agree that we need to increase the pace of innovation. My point is that 
I don't see a realistic discussion on this thread about resourcing the 
changes that we would all like to see. I would love to be wrong.




___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
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

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

- Original Message -
> From: "John Arthorne" 
> To: "Cross project issues" 
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:17:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE
> 
> Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote on 07/18/2013 05:01:50 AM:
> 
> > Too much of the platform is still
> > dominated and controlled too strictly by that one single company.
> > Contributions got turned away because of the "lack of resources"
> > argument and associated maintenance costs long term. To some point
> > those arguments aren't completely invalid. I'm at a point of being
> > resigned when it comes to contributing to the platform.
> 
> This statement worries me more than everything else that has been written in
> this thread. It makes sense that there are very few committers who are
> focused on the requirements of the direct Eclipse user base. There are few
> people with the motivation to even gather feedback on the pain points of
> using a free tool, let alone spending significant time addressing them. I
> believe the main focus for most current committers is:
> 
> 1) Stuff *they* (or their employer) want to focus on
> 2) Enabling other contributors to help *them* fix the problems they want to
> see fixed
> 
> I think this is one of Doug's key points, that working to enable more
> contributors is the only scalable solution. Imagine someone spent the time
> to gather a list of the "top 5" most pressing problems/enhancement requests.
> Maybe the current committers can take this list and fix 1 or 2 of them
> between their other priorities. Well, next year there will be a new list,
> and more requests, and still no more people to work on them. It will not
> result in a dramatic transformation of the perception or trajectory of
> Eclipse as an IDE.
> 
> However Gunnar's comment says we are even failing on enabling contributors,
> which vexes me. I actually thought we had made improvements on that in the
> past couple of years. The Foundation and many committers have been working
> to reduce barriers to contribution in any way possible. Switching to Git,
> moving the build to Maven/Tycho, adopting Gerrit, and holding dedicated
> patch review days are a few of the things committers have been doing. From
> the statistics it looks like we are even starting to see results on this.
> Ohloh metrics have shown a stable or even slight upwards trend in the number
> of Platform contributors in the past couple of years [1]. JDT core and SWT,
> historically the two components with the toughest standards for accepting
> committers, have both seen committers from new companies this year. Platform
> UI, which is in a position to address many of the preference problems
> described here, has THIRTY NINE committers. I don't doubt there are still
> barriers, but it looks like at least some people are managing to overcome
> them and bring their contributions into the platform.
> 
> Personally most the time I used to spend directly fixing user reported
> problems, I now spend reviewing patches and trying to enable others to
> contribute fixes instead. If successful, this has a multiplier effect that
> grows the base of people capable of contributing and is, I think, the best
> use of the limited committer resources we have available. So don't tell me
> what you want to see fixed. Tell me how I can help you to fix them.

Don't take it personal. Personally I am more than thankful to you for all the 
support for guiding us and helping to push our patches in. And I would even say 
that without your support many of the patches my team created would have still 
be pending in bugzilla if you haven't stepped in. Things improved a lot in last 
year but the pace would need to be kept and even speed it up before it becomes 
visible to people not directly contributing to some project. 

Alex


> 
> John
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.ohloh.net/p/eclipse/factoids#FactoidTeamSizeVeryLarge
> 
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> 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

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Andrew Ross]

Enthusiastic +1, right on the mark John.

It may be painful in the short term as you can definitely do things 
faster & better. However, getting that next generation on their feet 
grows and diversifies the community.


On 18/07/13 16:17, John Arthorne wrote:
Personally most the time I used to spend directly fixing user reported 
problems, I now spend reviewing patches and trying to enable others to 
contribute fixes instead. If successful, this has a multiplier effect 
that grows the base of people capable of contributing and is, I think, 
the best use of the limited committer resources we have available. So 
don't tell me what you want to see fixed. Tell me how I can help you 
to fix them.


___
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] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Gunnar Wagenknecht]

Am 18.07.2013 um 22:17 schrieb John Arthorne :
> However Gunnar's comment says we are even failing on enabling contributors, 
> which vexes me. I actually thought we had made improvements on that in the 
> past couple of years. The Foundation and many committers have been working to 
> reduce barriers to contribution in any way possible.

Sorry John, I definitely didn't want to vex you. I just wrote about my personal 
experience I made a some time ago. So there is some history. But I agree, 
especially *you* and the platform team invested a lot into making contributions 
easier. I also understand that most of the time I was part of the crowd pushing 
you into this and I apologize for not attributing those efforts properly.

> Personally most the time I used to spend directly fixing user reported 
> problems, I now spend reviewing patches and trying to enable others to 
> contribute fixes instead.


Thanks!

-Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gun...@wagenknecht.org





___
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] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Doug Schaefer]

Thanks John. I'm glad you commented.

And you are right, I think the problem is just perception and based more on the 
past than the present. And, in many ways, it's those changes that help give me 
hope. If we do get more people interested in contributing, we have a much 
better ability at affecting change now than we ever have.

Doug.

From: John Arthorne mailto:john_artho...@ca.ibm.com>>
Reply-To: Cross project issues 
mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Date: Thursday, 18 July, 2013 4:17 PM
To: Cross project issues 
mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE

Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote on 07/18/2013 05:01:50 AM:

> Too much of the platform is still
> dominated and controlled too strictly by that one single company.
> Contributions got turned away because of the "lack of resources"
> argument and associated maintenance costs long term. To some point
> those arguments aren't completely invalid. I'm at a point of being
> resigned when it comes to contributing to the platform.

This statement worries me more than everything else that has been written in 
this thread. It makes sense that there are very few committers who are focused 
on the requirements of the direct Eclipse user base. There are few people with 
the motivation to even gather feedback on the pain points of using a free tool, 
let alone spending significant time addressing them. I believe the main focus 
for most current committers is:

1) Stuff *they* (or their employer) want to focus on
2) Enabling other contributors to help *them* fix the problems they want to see 
fixed

I think this is one of Doug's key points, that working to enable more 
contributors is the only scalable solution. Imagine someone spent the time to 
gather a list of the "top 5" most pressing problems/enhancement requests. Maybe 
the current committers can take this list and fix 1 or 2 of them between their 
other priorities. Well, next year there will be a new list, and more requests, 
and still no more people to work on them. It will not result in a dramatic 
transformation of the perception or trajectory of Eclipse as an IDE.

However Gunnar's comment says we are even failing on enabling contributors, 
which vexes me. I actually thought we had made improvements on that in the past 
couple of years. The Foundation and many committers have been working to reduce 
barriers to contribution in any way possible. Switching to Git, moving the 
build to Maven/Tycho, adopting Gerrit, and holding dedicated patch review days 
are a few of the things committers have been doing. From the statistics it 
looks like we are even starting to see results on this. Ohloh metrics have 
shown a stable or even slight upwards trend in the number of Platform 
contributors in the past couple of years [1]. JDT core and SWT, historically 
the two components with the toughest standards for accepting committers, have 
both seen committers from new companies this year. Platform UI, which is in a 
position to address many of the preference problems described here, has THIRTY 
NINE committers. I don't doubt there are still barriers, but it looks like at 
least some people are managing to overcome them and bring their contributions 
into the platform.

Personally most the time I used to spend directly fixing user reported 
problems, I now spend reviewing patches and trying to enable others to 
contribute fixes instead. If successful, this has a multiplier effect that 
grows the base of people capable of contributing and is, I think, the best use 
of the limited committer resources we have available. So don't tell me what you 
want to see fixed. Tell me how I can help you to fix them.

John


[1] https://www.ohloh.net/p/eclipse/factoids#FactoidTeamSizeVeryLarge
___
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] Future of Eclipse IDE

[John Arthorne]

Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote on 07/18/2013 05:01:50 AM:

> Too much of the platform is still 
> dominated and controlled too strictly by that one single company. 
> Contributions got turned away because of the "lack of resources" 
> argument and associated maintenance costs long term. To some point 
> those arguments aren't completely invalid. I'm at a point of being 
> resigned when it comes to contributing to the platform. 

This statement worries me more than everything else that has been written 
in this thread. It makes sense that there are very few committers who are 
focused on the requirements of the direct Eclipse user base. There are few 
people with the motivation to even gather feedback on the pain points of 
using a free tool, let alone spending significant time addressing them. I 
believe the main focus for most current committers is:

1) Stuff *they* (or their employer) want to focus on
2) Enabling other contributors to help *them* fix the problems they want 
to see fixed

I think this is one of Doug's key points, that working to enable more 
contributors is the only scalable solution. Imagine someone spent the time 
to gather a list of the "top 5" most pressing problems/enhancement 
requests. Maybe the current committers can take this list and fix 1 or 2 
of them between their other priorities. Well, next year there will be a 
new list, and more requests, and still no more people to work on them. It 
will not result in a dramatic transformation of the perception or 
trajectory of Eclipse as an IDE.

However Gunnar's comment says we are even failing on enabling 
contributors, which vexes me. I actually thought we had made improvements 
on that in the past couple of years. The Foundation and many committers 
have been working to reduce barriers to contribution in any way possible. 
Switching to Git, moving the build to Maven/Tycho, adopting Gerrit, and 
holding dedicated patch review days are a few of the things committers 
have been doing. From the statistics it looks like we are even starting to 
see results on this. Ohloh metrics have shown a stable or even slight 
upwards trend in the number of Platform contributors in the past couple of 
years [1]. JDT core and SWT, historically the two components with the 
toughest standards for accepting committers, have both seen committers 
from new companies this year. Platform UI, which is in a position to 
address many of the preference problems described here, has THIRTY NINE 
committers. I don't doubt there are still barriers, but it looks like at 
least some people are managing to overcome them and bring their 
contributions into the platform.

Personally most the time I used to spend directly fixing user reported 
problems, I now spend reviewing patches and trying to enable others to 
contribute fixes instead. If successful, this has a multiplier effect that 
grows the base of people capable of contributing and is, I think, the best 
use of the limited committer resources we have available. So don't tell me 
what you want to see fixed. Tell me how I can help you to fix them.

John


[1] https://www.ohloh.net/p/eclipse/factoids#FactoidTeamSizeVeryLarge___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

[cross-project-issues-dev] New Equinox Framework now included in the Equinox and Eclipse Integration builds

[Thomas Watson]

We are well into M1 now for Luna.  I thought I would take some time to
announce the efforts we have been making to improve the Equinox Core
Framework implementation for the Luna release.  As you may know from
previous posts I have made to the equinox-dev mailing list, we have been
working in a branch on significant re-factoring and in many cases rewriting
portions of the Equinox Framework.  Please see
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/Luna_Framework for more details.  The new
framework implementation has been in master since the I20130702-1230
integration build.

For most developers this change should not be noticed.  But, as documented
in the wiki above, there are 4 main areas of concern that the community
should be aware of:

1) The Framework no longer uses the old Equinox resolver API
org.eclipse.osgi.service.resolver internally to resolve bundles.
2) All Equinox Framework specific hook implementations are broken and will
need to migrate.  This impacts Virgo and ObjectTeams projects in
particular.
3) Removal of Old Style Plugin Support.  Compatibility fragment available
to add support back.
4) Removal of PlatformAdmin Service Implementation.  Compatibility fragment
available to add support back.

I actually expect 2) to cause the most heartache, but hopefully for a very
small set of developers that need to plug directly into the implementation
details of the Equinox framework.  For this group of develpers please do
not hesitate to direct questions to the equinox-dev mailing list for
assistance in migrating to the Luna release.

Please direct any questions or concerns you may have to the equinox-dev
mailing list.  Also, please give the new framework a try and open any bug
reports for issues you come across.

Thanks

Tom
___
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] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Doug Schaefer]

Great words Gunnar. It's funny, as a Canadian, I still have hope, dreaming 
maybe, but hope. And that hope stems from watching the reaction in the room as 
the Bling IDE guys showed off, not only a really cool SWT port, but their 
passion for building a modern IDE based on Eclipse targeted at some pretty 
demanding users. And I felt it in that passion in audience as well. If we could 
harness that energy, I really think (hope) we can turn this thing around.

And it's interesting you bring up JavaFX. It's certainly what Oracle is trying 
to do with the Java platform. If we could combine forces, start migrating 
Eclipse towards JavaFX, first by porting SWT over it and then by leveraging 
e4's renderer framework to go pure JavaFX, it might be something we could get 
the kids excited about and get a new generation of contributors.

Doug.

From: Gunnar Wagenknecht mailto:gun...@wagenknecht.org>>
Reply-To: Cross project issues 
mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Date: Thursday, 18 July, 2013 5:01 AM
To: Cross project issues 
mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE

Am 18.07.2013 um 09:59 schrieb Mickael Istria 
mailto:mist...@redhat.com>>:
Eclipse Foundation is IMO the only organization which is able to be efficient 
at listening to the "market" of IDEs

I strongly disagree with this statement. There are many organizations as well 
as companies out there that can perform this equally efficient if not better. 
In fact, there used to be a company in the past. Also, anything the Foundation 
does is an investment as well. Simply put, in the end someone has to pay for it.

BTW, when doing competitive analysis I also disagree with an earlier argument 
that some ide isn't free and therefore doesn't count. There are a bunch of 
people out there that would rather spend a two digit amount for something that 
helps them get their work done more efficiently.

Anyway, just looking at the raw numbers, the issue is obvious. There were *a 
million* commits in the "eclipse" project (what I consider "platform") within 
three years back in 2004. It was only a good third in the last three years 
(2010-2012).
http://dash.eclipse.org/dash/commits/web-app/summary.cgi

Those commits went into a lot of things truly important for innovation higher 
up the stack (SWT, Text, JFace, Resources). SWT has been in maintenance mode 
since important committers left. Oracle is investing a lot into JavaFX. There 
is some shift towards the web. There is a lot innovation happening at Orion. 
Also, the diversification into areas such as M2M, Polarsys, etc. help the 
Foundation maintaining a steady interest in the Foundation model. But what does 
this mean for the IDE?

Frankly, I think Orion is too early. There is still much attraction in native 
IDEs. We all have good ideas to improve the Eclipse IDE in ways we can. I've 
put energy into a proposal to address the preference issues within the 
packages. There is progress on this end. I've also put quite a bit energy into 
improving things in the past as well. There is only so much you can do as a 
single contributor not even working full-time on things. But I got frustrated 
along the way. Too much of the platform is still dominated and controlled too 
strictly by that one single company. Contributions got turned away because of 
the "lack of resources" argument and associated maintenance costs long term. To 
some point those arguments aren't completely invalid. I'm at a point of being 
resigned when it comes to contributing to the platform.

Without a team that is sufficiently funded for an interesting time period, it's 
only the small steps we can do. I'm wondering if those small steps will be 
enough for the IDE to have a future. Well, being a German I am actually more 
concerned than wondering but I consider this a better thing than not caring at 
all. I really appreciate the time and energy people are spending on this 
discussion.

-Gunnar

--
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gun...@wagenknecht.org





___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Mykola Nikishov]

On 07/16/2013 10:36 AM, zhu kane wrote:


I think Eclipse can offer a feature to synchronize kinds of
configuration, like Chrome and Firefox Sync.

Developers can use their account of eclipse.org  to
synchronize their installation of plug-ins, preference configuration and
even more.


EclipseSource's Yoxos [1] + Workspace Provisioning [2] does exactly this 
and is great for personal use.


[1] http://eclipsesource.com/en/products/yoxos/
[2] 
https://yoxos.eclipsesource.com/yoxos/node/com.yoxos.provisioning.feature.group


--
Mykola

http://ua.linkedin.com/in/manandbytes
https://github.com/manandbytes/
___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Carsten Reckord]

On 15.07.2013 22:08, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't think that the JDT approach is workable for all
> preferences, and asking the user for the scope where he wants to store a
> particular preference is going to result in complex UI that will confuse
> users.

How about a global "change user configuration" switch? Flick the switch to
enter "user configuration" mode and any configurations you make anywhere
will end up in the user scope. To avoid confusion/accidental changes, this
mode could be indicated with some big notification banner in the workspace
(and the preference editor).

Add a "reset to user configuration" option to sync other workspaces by
overriding/clearing local workspace-scope preferences and voila (or maybe do
that automatically based on e.g. timestamping of the user preference store).

On 16.07.2013 09:54, Campo, Christian wrote:
> Sharing prefs between workspaces sounds good. The suggested solution
> still sounds a little bit too complicated (for my taste of course). If I
> open a workspace, why cant I not directly reference an existing workspace
> and copy the preferences from there ? (why the extra export step) And for
> completeness wouldnt it be call if all my Eclipse installations share the
> same list of know workspace locations :-) so that I dont have to add them
> again when I unpack a new Eclipse IDE.

I don't think any solution based on copying preferences between workspaces
is a good one. It gets very confusing very fast when multiple (>2)
workspaces get involved and you wish to keep them all in sync on some common
settings that could change at any time in anyone of them.


One problem with either approach is that I often encountered the case where
not everything was copyable/syncable with the available methods (i.e.
preference im/export and workspace layout copying). I often ended up
fiddling with stuff manually that didn't get across. One particular area
OTOH is position of view trims as well as position and filtering of toolbar
items. But of course those problems would just be worth individual bug
reports and have no impact on a solution strategy for the general syncing
problem.
___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Stephan Herrmann]

How many of you guys are using workspace mechanic [1]?
From my experience it goes a long way in the desired direction.
Given that workspace mechanic is looking for a new maintainer,
maybe "we" want to adopt it in some way?

cheers,
Stephan

[1] http://code.google.com/a/eclipselabs.org/p/workspacemechanic/

On 07/15/2013 07:22 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:

It may be hard, but it's is one huge item that we've all run into with our 
users. It's probably worth the price.

From: Pascal Rapicault mailto:pascal.rapica...@ericsson.com>>
Reply-To: Cross project issues mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Date: Monday, 15 July, 2013 6:55 PM
To: Cross project issues mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse 
smells kind of dead" thread)

Internally the preferences are already organized in “scopes” that are:

-Project

-Workspace

-Configuration

-(There is no such thing as “system”)

However the user does not have a say as in the scope in which a value should be 
stored. This is mostly because creating a UI for
this is hard (we explored some things back in the 3.0 days when we introduced 
the scope mechanism).

*From:*cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 

[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] *On Behalf Of *Henrik
*Sent:* July-15-13 12:45 PM
*To:* Cross project issues
*Subject:* [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse 
smells kind of dead" thread)

Hi all,

I know that preferences can be imported/exported.
Yet I find it a bit cumbersome to care about that every time I create a new 
workspace.

Wouldn't it make sense to have preferences arranged in several layers similar 
to git: system/user/workspace?

Also I could imagine to offer a web page with collections of preference 
settings.
They could be ordered in categories (maybe aligned to the packaged Eclipse 
installations).
And we could offer a possibility for users to cast their vote to be able to 
rank the settings.

-Henrik



___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
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

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

- Original Message -
> From: "Gunnar Wagenknecht" 
> To: "Cross project issues" 
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:01:50 PM
> Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE
> 
> Am 18.07.2013 um 09:59 schrieb Mickael Istria < mist...@redhat.com >:
> 
> 
> Eclipse Foundation is IMO the only organization which is able to be efficient
> at listening to the "market" of IDEs
> 
> I strongly disagree with this statement. There are many organizations as well
> as companies out there that can perform this equally efficient if not
> better. In fact, there used to be a company in the past. Also, anything the
> Foundation does is an investment as well. Simply put, in the end someone has
> to pay for it.

I would say the problem of Eclipse is being too "corporative". Many people 
believe there has to be some huge corporation backing it up. 
And this is not sustainable long-term. Yes, big corporation can fund many 
things and etc. but what happens if/when it loses interest? 
Go back to limbo state? Overload few individuals to try keep things like 
working? No matter who will fund the work you needed people with passion
about it, ready to spend their own time and energy if needed and etc. to keep 
it alive long term. If we are looking for someone paying X 9to5 programmers for 
Y months we are doomed to have this discussion periodically. 


> 
> BTW, when doing competitive analysis I also disagree with an earlier argument
> that some ide isn't free and therefore doesn't count. There are a bunch of
> people out there that would rather spend a two digit amount for something
> that helps them get their work done more efficiently.
> 
> Anyway, just looking at the raw numbers, the issue is obvious. There were *a
> million* commits in the "eclipse" project (what I consider "platform")
> within three years back in 2004. It was only a good third in the last three
> years (2010-2012).
> http://dash.eclipse.org/dash/commits/web-app/summary.cgi
> 
> Those commits went into a lot of things truly important for innovation higher
> up the stack (SWT, Text, JFace, Resources). SWT has been in maintenance mode
> since important committers left. Oracle is investing a lot into JavaFX.
> There is some shift towards the web. There is a lot innovation happening at
> Orion. Also, the diversification into areas such as M2M, Polarsys, etc. help
> the Foundation maintaining a steady interest in the Foundation model. But
> what does this mean for the IDE?

I would dare to say that many people complain but very few contribute back.
And it's not that hard. With my SWT hat on getting an intern from knowing 
nothing about SWT to being one of the most effective contributors during Kepler 
was a matter of few teaching sessions. The whole argument about complexity and 
getting new people in is totally wrong. Yes, there are very hard items that 
very few people know in enough details to fix properly but there are tens(if 
not hundreds) more items that are easy to do and allowing others to do them 
actually frees time for the few people capable of dealing with the hard items 
to work on them. I doubt it will be harder for other parts of the Platform to 
get substantial but easy improvements. Existing committer can easily teach one 
new each.

Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team

> 
> Frankly, I think Orion is too early. There is still much attraction in native
> IDEs. We all have good ideas to improve the Eclipse IDE in ways we can. I've
> put energy into a proposal to address the preference issues within the
> packages. There is progress on this end. I've also put quite a bit energy
> into improving things in the past as well. There is only so much you can do
> as a single contributor not even working full-time on things. But I got
> frustrated along the way. Too much of the platform is still dominated and
> controlled too strictly by that one single company. Contributions got turned
> away because of the "lack of resources" argument and associated maintenance
> costs long term. To some point those arguments aren't completely invalid.
> I'm at a point of being resigned when it comes to contributing to the
> platform.
> 
> Without a team that is sufficiently funded for an interesting time period,
> it's only the small steps we can do. I'm wondering if those small steps will
> be enough for the IDE to have a future. Well, being a German I am actually
> more concerned than wondering but I consider this a better thing than not
> caring at all. I really appreciate the time and energy people are spending
> on this discussion.
> 
> -Gunnar
> 
> --
> Gunnar Wagenknecht
> gun...@wagenknecht.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> 
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Campo, Christian]

I partially agree that your top 10 list is different than mine. However I dont 
believe in the "ultimate truth" that the Eclipse Foundation could supply.

I see the EF as an umbrella not really as the someone/something who wants too 
or should open feature bugs against a project or come up with a list of things 
that should be done. That would be pretty unusual.

And just assume they (the EF) would create just a list, its pretty demotivating 
to invest time and money in that, if there are no resources around who pick it 
up, dont you think ?

Maybe that makes a good topic for ECE 2013 for a BoF or something. I remember 
last year when John reported about the platform in a BoF at ECE 2012 and there 
were quite a number of people listening, but resources were a large topic. Any 
the plans that he talked about were rather small things since they are not many 
active platform committers.

christian

Von: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] Im Auftrag von Mickael 
Istria
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2013 10:52
An: cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Betreff: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was touched in 
"Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

On 07/18/2013 10:37 AM, Campo, Christian wrote:
But are we not already aware of say the top 10 things that we think should be 
done.
I'm not sure about that. I have my personal bets on some of the top features, 
but I'm not sure what I have in mind is actually what would make the user 
ecosystem happier. That's why I would find quite interesting to have some 
"official" reports about this top 10 (or more) based on the actual state of IDE 
market/ecosystem.
It would help contributors to focus on the most important issues, and help 
companies to decide of where to focus their investment.
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
My blog - My 
Tweets

-
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
web: www.compeople.de

Vorstand: J?rgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

[cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE

[Gunnar Wagenknecht]

Am 18.07.2013 um 09:59 schrieb Mickael Istria :
> Eclipse Foundation is IMO the only organization which is able to be efficient 
> at listening to the "market" of IDEs


I strongly disagree with this statement. There are many organizations as well 
as companies out there that can perform this equally efficient if not better. 
In fact, there used to be a company in the past. Also, anything the Foundation 
does is an investment as well. Simply put, in the end someone has to pay for 
it.  

BTW, when doing competitive analysis I also disagree with an earlier argument 
that some ide isn't free and therefore doesn't count. There are a bunch of 
people out there that would rather spend a two digit amount for something that 
helps them get their work done more efficiently. 

Anyway, just looking at the raw numbers, the issue is obvious. There were *a 
million* commits in the "eclipse" project (what I consider "platform") within 
three years back in 2004. It was only a good third in the last three years 
(2010-2012).
http://dash.eclipse.org/dash/commits/web-app/summary.cgi

Those commits went into a lot of things truly important for innovation higher 
up the stack (SWT, Text, JFace, Resources). SWT has been in maintenance mode 
since important committers left. Oracle is investing a lot into JavaFX. There 
is some shift towards the web. There is a lot innovation happening at Orion. 
Also, the diversification into areas such as M2M, Polarsys, etc. help the 
Foundation maintaining a steady interest in the Foundation model. But what does 
this mean for the IDE? 

Frankly, I think Orion is too early. There is still much attraction in native 
IDEs. We all have good ideas to improve the Eclipse IDE in ways we can. I've 
put energy into a proposal to address the preference issues within the 
packages. There is progress on this end. I've also put quite a bit energy into 
improving things in the past as well. There is only so much you can do as a 
single contributor not even working full-time on things. But I got frustrated 
along the way. Too much of the platform is still dominated and controlled too 
strictly by that one single company. Contributions got turned away because of 
the "lack of resources" argument and associated maintenance costs long term. To 
some point those arguments aren't completely invalid. I'm at a point of being 
resigned when it comes to contributing to the platform. 

Without a team that is sufficiently funded for an interesting time period, it's 
only the small steps we can do. I'm wondering if those small steps will be 
enough for the IDE to have a future. Well, being a German I am actually more 
concerned than wondering but I consider this a better thing than not caring at 
all. I really appreciate the time and energy people are spending on this 
discussion. 

-Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gun...@wagenknecht.org





___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Mickael Istria]

On 07/18/2013 10:37 AM, Campo, Christian wrote:
But are we not already aware of say the top 10 things that we think 
should be done.
I'm not sure about that. I have my personal bets on some of the top 
features, but I'm not sure what I have in mind is actually what would 
make the user ecosystem happier. That's why I would find quite 
interesting to have some "official" reports about this top 10 (or more) 
based on the actual state of IDE market/ecosystem.
It would help contributors to focus on the most important issues, and 
help companies to decide of where to focus their investment.

--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat 
My blog  - My Tweets 

___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Campo, Christian]

But are we not already aware of say the top 10 things that we think should be 
done. Maybe just in our view but its not that we have no idea what is needed.

I think Mike points at the 2 or 3 people in the platform that are currently 
only available and that means that they have mostly to concentrate on bug fixes 
and smaller features. If you now have a wish for a larger feature that requires 
a few month to implement, who steps up and raises his/her hand to actually do 
it.

christian

Von: Mickael Istria mailto:mist...@redhat.com>>
Antworten an: Cross issues 
mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2013 09:59
An: "mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org" 
mailto:mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org>>
Cc: Cross issues 
mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>
Betreff: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Preferences (topic was touched in 
"Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

I understand your point about the lack of resources. For sure, more 
contributors/workforce would be the solution to most issues.
But let's face it, the "lack of resources" problem has been there for years, 
and despite of all efforts made by the project teams, the number of 
contributors doens't grow that much. In parallel to making efforts to get more 
contributors, we have to deal with this lack of resources in the Eclipse 
community. A way to deal with this is to provide some guidance to make the best 
things happen with the current amount of contributors. And Eclipse Foundation 
is IMO the only organization which is able to be efficient at listening to the 
"market" of IDEs and provide summaries of what people from outside of the 
community see as main issues in Eclipse in a sustainable. Then the Foundation 
could provide recommendation to projects so they could take them into account 
in their roadmap or in the way they prioritize bugs.
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
My blog - My 
Tweets

-
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
web: www.compeople.de

Vorstand: J?rgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-
___
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] Preferences (topic was touched in "Eclipse smells kind of dead" thread)

[Mickael Istria]

I understand your point about the lack of resources. For sure, more 
contributors/workforce would be the solution to most issues.
But let's face it, the "lack of resources" problem has been there for 
years, and despite of all efforts made by the project teams, the number 
of contributors doens't grow that much. In parallel to making efforts to 
get more contributors, we have to deal with this lack of resources in 
the Eclipse community. A way to deal with this is to provide some 
guidance to make the best things happen with the current amount of 
contributors. And Eclipse Foundation is IMO the only organization which 
is able to be efficient at listening to the "market" of IDEs and provide 
summaries of what people from outside of the community see as main 
issues in Eclipse in a sustainable. Then the Foundation could provide 
recommendation to projects so they could take them into account in their 
roadmap or in the way they prioritize bugs.

--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat 
My blog  - My Tweets 

___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev