|Moving to Eclipse||Mike Milinkovich||1/22/13 6:50 AM|
This thread is to discuss the steps required to move the vert.x project to Eclipse.
First off: welcome! We're excited to have the vert.x community join Eclipse.
The how to get started page can be found at http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Starting_A_New_Project
The first step will be to draft a project proposal for review by the Eclipse community. Once we have that in hand, I can also take it to the Eclipse Board and ask for approval for vert.x to use the Apache License. I am assuming that this is Tim's action item. There is a proposal template linked off of the how to get started page mentioned above.
The project will need to find two mentors from the Architecture Council. I think I recall Chris Aniszczyk volunteering. Your mentors will help guide you through the process.
The project will have to decide which top level project they want to join. I believe that the two choices are Technology (where many incubating projects start off) or Runtime.
VMware will have to review the Eclipse Foundation's trademark and domain name assignment agreement, which can be found at http://www.eclipse.org/legal/Trademark_Transfer_Agreement.pdf. It doesn't have to be done immediately, but it will need to be done for the project to actually get started.
It is Wayne Beaton's role to help new projects get started at Eclipse. You can always reach him at emo at eclipse dot org.
Thanks! And again, welcome.
|Re: [vertx:6278] Moving to Eclipse||Pid||1/22/13 7:01 AM|
On 22/01/2013 14:50, Mike Milinkovich wrote:Is there a list of the projects in each category somewhere? 'Runtime'
sounds like an appropriate home for vert.x on first hearing.
|Re: [vertx:6278] Moving to Eclipse||Mike Milinkovich||1/22/13 7:08 AM|
Yes. Please see http://www.eclipse.org/projects/listofprojects.php
I lean a little towards RT as well. Current RT projects include Jetty, Equinox (OSGi), and Virgo.
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||J Arthorn||1/22/13 7:13 AM|
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, Mike Milinkovich wrote:The project will need to find two mentors from the Architecture Council. I think I recall Chris Aniszczyk volunteering. Your mentors will help guide you through the process.
I would be happy to help as a mentor. To see other options, here is a list of active members:
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||Chris Aniszczyk||1/22/13 7:21 AM|
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:50:41 AM UTC-6, Mike Milinkovich wrote:This thread is to discuss the steps required to move the vert.x project to Eclipse.
Tim, I suggest we first hack the proposal up. I took a quick stab at it and shared it on GitHub:
Please fork and add changes back (ignore everything really but the proposal.html file).
Would love for John A. to chime in too (and anyone else in the community for that matter).
I definitely don't mind being listed as a mentor and helping out.
This is a toss up for me. I may prefer Technology here as the PMC is very active and great for projects who are just starting out at Eclipse. However, I may be bias since I'm part of the Technology PMC. However, the Runtime project is a good fit too.
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||Alexis Richardson||1/22/13 7:28 AM|
Thanks Chris and John :-)
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||Tim Fox||1/22/13 8:36 AM|
Ok, will do!
|Re: [vertx:6286] Re: Moving to Eclipse||Wayne Beaton||1/22/13 9:05 AM|
You've made a good start on the proposal.
The scope should describe the boundaries of the project. What does the project provide? It should be in the present tense as it is expected to meaningful throughout the life of the project (having said that, the scope of a project can be changed).
The first sentence in the scope section is good:
The rest probably belongs in the background section.
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||Mike Milinkovich||1/23/13 11:57 AM|
I would like to see if the vert.x community would have any issues with dual-licensing vert.x under the Apache License v2.0 and the Eclipse Public License v1.0. See Jetty as an example of a project at Eclipse which currently does this. For those who do not spend their free time studying FLOSS licenses, the main difference is that ALv2 is a permissive license, whereas the EPL is a copyleft license roughly similar to the MPL, CDDL and LGPL.
The reasoning is as follows:
This is, of course, contingent on the lawyers agreeing that the CLAs in place are sufficient to support this. Since VMware is the current holder of the CLAs, it would also require their agreement.
If anyone has any questions or concerns, please let us know.
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||froz3n||1/24/13 7:58 AM|
Great news! Congratulations to all involved.
|Re: [vertx:6330] Re: Moving to Eclipse||Tim Fox||1/24/13 11:50 AM|
My personal opinion on this would be that I don't have a problem with dual licensing since it shouldn't really have any effect on contributions, and if it makes code easier to copy and paste between Eclipse projects that's a bonus.
|Re: [vertx:6286] Re: Moving to Eclipse||J Arthorn||1/28/13 7:15 AM|
The closest comparison I could find was the Virgo proposal , whose scope was a single sentence, "the development of an Equinox-based dynamic runtime platform for server-side enterprise applications deployed as OSGi bundles ". If you replace "Equinox-based" with "JVM-based" and remove the word "OSGi" I think it fits pretty closely with vert.x. The threadless concurrency model and multi-language capability are pretty central too. So, how about:
The scope of the Vert.x project is:
|Re: Moving to Eclipse||Max Rydahl Andersen||1/28/13 7:23 AM|
I know this was asked earlier but didn't find the answer posted, so doing it here:
Is there a public list of approved/IP cleared list of dependencies ?
From John Arthorne:
"With very few exceptions, all third party libraries are in Orbit and easily browsed from the Orbit download page:
The list above does not include *everything* but you should be able to use that to at least find dependencies that are already approved
Leaving just the "not-known" libraries which probably is worth mention in the "Legal issues" section.