Hi Jody, I understand what you write and also took part in the kickoff conference call, discussions and placed my +1 on the RFC.
What I am saying is that after that things are not clear to me. For me the first *MANDATORY* step was to get the copyright issues solved with Refractions. Without that it would make no sense to start. If I am not mistaken until today no step forward has been done on this side, so I am just wondering why we are moving on? Are things happening behind the scenes? Andrea On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Jody Garnett <[email protected]>wrote: > TLDR: Jody is alive. We have some organisation > here<http://udig.refractions.net/confluence/display/UDIG/Eclipse+Foundation> > and > a bit of work to do (but the Eclipse Foundation seems to be ready to help > out on the hard part). Please join the Eclipse Location Working group (even > if just to lurk). > > Jody > > Still the question holds: who is going to start the process of getting > uDig to eclipse. I think we would need to have at least a couple of > members of the communtiy to assure presence and contribution. Did I > loose another email thread? > > Perhaps - We did start the process in December :-) However it is going a > bit slow as we need to ask eclipse to be comfortable with us using LGPL > license libraries (JTS and GeoTools). We can probably get an exception for > that by demonstrating how valuable they are and that we don't have the > capacity to rewrite them… > > Other then that I think we are waiting to hear back from Andrew and Andrew > is waiting to hear back from us. > > I am keen to start :-) As such I would like to fill in our RFC and get a > good list of tasks going to capture the work involved so we can start to > round up resources. > > The page is here (is this what you missed?): > - http://udig.refractions.net/confluence/display/UDIG/Eclipse+Foundation > > On a separate topic - I would like to see uDig taking part in the eclipse > "location" working group; however to date all the meetings have been at 3am > for me. I would like to ask that someone else from the uDig community > attend these (or we can ask Andrew to hold two meetings and cary the > minuets over between them). > > Andrew has a bit of a balancing act as representative of both Eclipse and > OSGeo Foundations. To be fair so do I since I the OSGeo incubation chair. > We can muddle along; but just a reminder to play nice as we all have the > same goals. > > We have also failed to contact Refractions (although we have asked Emily > to check in with Refractions Management). Andrew you may wish to use Emily > as a useful Refractions contact until we can arrange a better introduction > - she is CCed on this email. > > Other things in the mix: > - I would not mind changing the uDig license to EPL 1.0 to simplify our > license story. Our reasons for not using the license were only based on the > popularity of LGPL at the time (and the eclipse common license at the time > was not yet established as a viable investment target). > - We have a smooth working relationship with GeoTools (a policy of copying > code over when possible to share. We would need to amend this to cover a > license transition from EPL->LGPL perhaps a formal letter in our docs would > work. GeoServer has a similar arrangement (ask on the email list and get > approval) for the much harder GPL->LGPL transition so we have working > policy model to crib from. > - We are getting very fond of git; and github in particular. While I don't > mind continuing to persue github pages I would like to focus on static > content hosting; so we can take our docs with us and not get tied into > their fun little content theme scrubber thing. Eclipse now has some > procedures in place with respect to git. While github documentation has > been a key success factor for the project - that limit is less damaging as > git becomes the defacto technology. More damaging is the "if it is not on > github the project must be canceled" attitude that has already caused > trouble for GeoTools and GeoServer :-) > > Sure everybody can join. I am not afraid of the fact that too many > people would help. It is the other way round :) > So if such a process is started, I think there should be a minimum > number of developers that donate time to that process. Else I am just > wondering who would do the work. > > I am very keen; I want to talk with Andrew and determine how much work > there is and boil it down into tasks before asking the project to accept > the RFC proposal. > > This thought comes from the fact that when uDig needs to be released > and tested, very very few people are around. > > The automated maven / tycho build is helping a lot with this :-) Indeed I > think that is one of the most amazing things the Eclipse Foundation has > done recently. > > I would like some help on the release cycle front - as it cuts out my time > to work on QA and new ideas. > > Well, the move towards > eclipse looks way bigger to me than that, and without some > coordination I am just wondering how that should work? > > We have a small bit of coordination already started; thus far there have > been only two "common" concerns. > - After being on the incubation committee I was concerned about the review > processing being a lot of work - strangely enough this appears to be the > part where the eclipse foundation is ready to step in and help (yay!) > - The eclipse foundation has a "1.0 release" from a fresh codebase policy > which apparently is often a cause of contention. Since we lost our history > moving to gitourious we are rather relaxed about this one. > > Jody > > _______________________________________________ > User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) > http://udig.refractions.net > http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel > >
_______________________________________________ User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) http://udig.refractions.net http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
