Eclipse Dash issueshttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/groups/eclipse/technology/dash/-/issues2020-11-25T19:34:08Zhttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/42Add discussion on the relationship between GitHub releases and EDP releases t...2020-11-25T19:34:08ZEclipse WebmasterAdd discussion on the relationship between GitHub releases and EDP releases to the handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#506836)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=506836)**
## Description
An excerpt from a recent email that I sent:
--
We've avoided adding any significance ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#506836)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=506836)**
## Description
An excerpt from a recent email that I sent:
--
We've avoided adding any significance (as far as the Eclipse Development Process is concerned) to GitHub "releases". Though, I am concerned that there is ample opportunity for confusion between the GitHub notion and the more formal notion that we engage in. If you do choose to use GitHub releases as a concept separate from the EDP, I'd prefer that you use names that are suggestive of milestones (e.g. 1.0M1 is a milestone build for a pending more formal 1.0 release).
--
### Blocking
* [Bug 485964](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=485964)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/43Provide branding guidance for Eclipse Marketplace entries2020-11-25T19:34:10ZEclipse WebmasterProvide branding guidance for Eclipse Marketplace entries## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508078)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508078)**
## Description
Project-produced Marketplace entries should follow certain rules and conventions.
As ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508078)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508078)**
## Description
Project-produced Marketplace entries should follow certain rules and conventions.
As a general rule, project names should be avoided unless they are actually meaningful to the intended audience ("C/C++ Development Tools" is better than "CDT"; though that may be a bad example as CDT is pretty well known to the community).
The organization/provider must be "The Eclipse Foundation".
What else?
The existing link in the phrase "The Eclipse Foundation strongly encourages all projects to create an maintain and Eclipse Marketplace presence." should point to the new content.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/44Replace discussion of "works-with" dependencies need with regular approval me...2020-11-25T19:34:12ZEclipse WebmasterReplace discussion of "works-with" dependencies need with regular approval mechanism## Submitted by Gunnar Wagenknecht `@gunnar`
**[Link to original bug (#508160)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508160)**
## Description
Currently, a top-level PMC reviews and approves CQ filed by its projects. Approva...## Submitted by Gunnar Wagenknecht `@gunnar`
**[Link to original bug (#508160)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508160)**
## Description
Currently, a top-level PMC reviews and approves CQ filed by its projects. Approval happens via +1 in IPzilla
For "works-with" dependencies, this approval is not sufficient. For works-with dependencies, a PMC has to:
a) +1 on the mailing list
b) add mailing list link to IPzilla
c) +1 on IPzilla
I'd like to see a-b go. It adds unnecessary steps to the process which causes issues with projects - mostly in the form of delays.
### Depends on
* [Bug 508195](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508195)
### Blocking
* [Bug 508206](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508206)
* [Bug 509307](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509307)
* [Bug 529388](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=529388)
* [Bug 514657](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=514657)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/45Update the IP Due Diligence Process Poster to take IP Due Diligence type into...2020-11-25T19:34:20ZEclipse WebmasterUpdate the IP Due Diligence Process Poster to take IP Due Diligence type into consideration## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
Assigned to **Sharon Corbett `@scorbett`**
**[Link to original bug (#508207)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508207)**
## Description
The poster requires some updates to accom...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
Assigned to **Sharon Corbett `@scorbett`**
**[Link to original bug (#508207)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508207)**
## Description
The poster requires some updates to accommodate Type A/B Due Diligience.
This might be a good opportunity to revisit the technology that we use to generate the document. e.g. can we do a decent job of Graphviz?
We may also consider moving the document into the Handbook.
AFAIK, modifications to this document do not require approval from the IP Advisory Committee or the Board of Directors.
### Blocking
* [Bug 496959](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=496959)
* [Bug 499707](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=499707)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/47FIx the grammar in statement regarding trademarks and ownership.2020-11-25T19:34:24ZEclipse WebmasterFIx the grammar in statement regarding trademarks and ownership.## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508475)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508475)**
## Description
The grammar is incorrect in this sentence:
--
This prevents companies from misusing o...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508475)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508475)**
## Description
The grammar is incorrect in this sentence:
--
This prevents companies from misusing or misrepresenting their products as being the projects.
--
The wording is a bit awkward and should probably be changed.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/49Provide guidance regarding the use of IP in milestone builds2020-11-25T19:34:27ZEclipse WebmasterProvide guidance regarding the use of IP in milestone builds## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508554)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508554)**
## Description
There is some confusion regarding the software that may be included in milestone build...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508554)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508554)**
## Description
There is some confusion regarding the software that may be included in milestone builds. We should include some guidance in the handbook.
Essentially, everything that goes into a build is subject to the IP Due Diligence Process. For those bits that are reviewed by the IP Team (via CQs), #checkin approval is required before something can be included in a nightly/integration/milestone/etc build. Full approval is required before the something can be included in a release.
Builds are discussed sporadically in the document. Perhaps we can grow the "Builds" section.
### Blocking
* [Bug 499707](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=499707)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/50Provide more help for creating and editing release records2020-11-25T19:34:29ZEclipse WebmasterProvide more help for creating and editing release records## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508758)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508758)**
## Description
Tighten the connection between the section on Releases [1] and the content regarding r...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#508758)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508758)**
## Description
Tighten the connection between the section on Releases [1] and the content regarding releases in the PMI [2]. Consider including an overview of the process and--perhaps--a screenshot or two (doing this in a forge-independent manner will be challenging).
[1] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release-review
[2] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#pmi-releaseshttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/51Add a pointer to the IP Log Generator in the "IP Log Generator" section2020-11-25T19:34:31ZEclipse WebmasterAdd a pointer to the IP Log Generator in the "IP Log Generator" section## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#509114)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509114)**
## Description
We do have a pointer (instructions, actually) to the IP Log Generator in the "Release ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#509114)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509114)**
## Description
We do have a pointer (instructions, actually) to the IP Log Generator in the "Release Reviews" section. It seems obvious to include that same pointer in the "IP Log Generator" section.
### Blocking
* [Bug 499707](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=499707)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/52Provide instructions for getting funds for project logo design2020-11-25T19:34:33ZEclipse WebmasterProvide instructions for getting funds for project logo design## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#509175)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509175)**
## Description
The Eclipse Foundation can provide funding for projects that want to create a logo. We...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#509175)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509175)**
## Description
The Eclipse Foundation can provide funding for projects that want to create a logo. We need to describe that process. We should perhaps also include some discussion of this in the "Starting a Project" section.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/53Add an Intellectual Property FAQ entry regarding whether or not an IP Log nee...2020-11-25T19:34:39ZEclipse WebmasterAdd an Intellectual Property FAQ entry regarding whether or not an IP Log needs to be respun## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#509610)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509610)**
## Description
There is some confusion regarding whether or not a project team needs to respin an IP ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#509610)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509610)**
## Description
There is some confusion regarding whether or not a project team needs to respin an IP Log if they make a change between the time the IP log is approved and they actually ship release bits.
Specifically, there is a misunderstanding that the IP Log must exactly match the IP that's in the release bits.
--
Q: We submitted an IP Log for our release, but we've made some changes since then that will end up in the release, should we resubmit the IP Log?
A: The purpose of the IP Log review is to checkpoint the IP Due Diligence Process and ensure that nothing is slipping through the cracks; an IP Log is not intended to be an accurate reflection of exactly what is in any particular release.
--
### Blocking
* [Bug 499707](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=499707)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/54Add a "Getting Started" checklist2022-05-10T15:11:11ZEclipse WebmasterAdd a "Getting Started" checklist## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#510310)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=510310)**
## Description
We have a bit of a start on this in the "Starting an Open Source Project at Eclipse" s...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#510310)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=510310)**
## Description
We have a bit of a start on this in the "Starting an Open Source Project at Eclipse" section, but it's pretty high level and glosses over detail.
Further, having a more comprehensive check list gives us an opportunity to ensure that projects get off on the right foot.
Entries in the list should include:
* Ensure that all project committers have an Eclipse Foundation account;
After provisioning:
* Set up legal documentation (LICENSE.TXT) and about files;
* Add a CONTRIBUTING document;
* Upload your project logo
### Blocking
* [Bug 440244](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=440244)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/56Add discussion regarding why one might consider creating a subproject2020-11-25T19:34:45ZEclipse WebmasterAdd discussion regarding why one might consider creating a subproject## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#510539)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=510539)**
## Description
Consider adding some discussion regarding the pros and cons of creating subprojects. S...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#510539)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=510539)**
## Description
Consider adding some discussion regarding the pros and cons of creating subprojects. Some thoughts:
* Subprojects are basically projects
* Project members have no intrinsic role in the matters of their subprojects
* All projects bear a maintenance/administrative burden
* Subprojects have a distinct committer list; finer-grained control over resourceshttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/57Move content regarding naming conventions into the handbook2020-11-25T19:34:47ZEclipse WebmasterMove content regarding naming conventions into the handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#511321)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=511321)**
## Description
The root of the content regarding naming is here:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Developmen...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#511321)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=511321)**
## Description
The root of the content regarding naming is here:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Conventions_and_Guidelines
### Depends on
* [Bug 288644](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288644)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/58Add guidance on using DockerHub2020-11-25T19:34:49ZEclipse WebmasterAdd guidance on using DockerHub## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#511489)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=511489)**
## Description
We're currently engaged in some experimentation with projects using foundation-owned D...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#511489)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=511489)**
## Description
We're currently engaged in some experimentation with projects using foundation-owned DockerHub organizations. Once we sort out the lessons regarding how we should use those organizations, we should capture guidance in the handbook.
James and Roman, your insights are welcome.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/59Revise language used regarding hosting downloads2020-11-25T19:34:51ZEclipse WebmasterRevise language used regarding hosting downloads## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#511789)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=511789)**
## Description
For some projects, it just doesn't make sense to host downloads on Eclipse Foundation ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#511789)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=511789)**
## Description
For some projects, it just doesn't make sense to host downloads on Eclipse Foundation provided infrastructure. For project like Tycho for example, distribution via Maven Central is obvious and there is no value in having any sort of standard downloadable artifact.
Random thoughts:
I would like to avoid making projects host a download on EF infrastructure "just because". If there is no segment of the project's community that will benefit from having a traditional download, then there's no value in having/hosting that download.
We do have to heed the Freedom of Action principle outlined in the Eclipse Development Process. Project teams need to have a plan in place to rehost should their hosting solution become unavailable or untenable.
Any choice of where to host artifacts must permit unencumbered access for the entire community. Consumers must not need to register (for example) to obtain project artifacts.
If EF provided hosting services can reasonably be used, they must be used. If it is simply a matter of educating the community that the artifacts are available in one place rather than another, then a plan to provide that education must be in place. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, for a project to host downloads on bintray, but the primary download site must be on the EF-provided service.
Regardless of where artifacts are distributed, the project team must keep the project's "download" information current in the PMI. Project teams may optionally provide a "downloads" page that indicates the primary source of downloads along with alternatives.
Web pages that provide pointers to download information should (must?) also include a pointer to the security policy and a link to report vulnerabilities (see [Bug 496426](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=496426)).
Let's be sure to add entries regarding distribution of artifacts to the release review checklist (see [Bug 485704](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=485704)).
### Depends on
* [Bug 485704](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=485704)
* [Bug 496426](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=496426)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/60Consider moving the Gerrit user documentation into the committer handbook2020-11-25T19:34:54ZEclipse WebmasterConsider moving the Gerrit user documentation into the committer handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#512339)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=512339)**
## Description
I don't think that the handbook includes a link to the Gerrit documentation in the wik...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#512339)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=512339)**
## Description
I don't think that the handbook includes a link to the Gerrit documentation in the wiki:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Gerrit
We should at least include a link.
I'd also like to consider moving the documentation into the handbook. My primary concern against doing so is that updating the handbook is somewhat more involved than updating the wiki.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/61Add help for retiring committers2020-11-25T19:34:56ZEclipse WebmasterAdd help for retiring committers## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#512938)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=512938)**
## Description
We need to provide some content to help project leads retire committers.## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#512938)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=512938)**
## Description
We need to provide some content to help project leads retire committers.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/62Add guidance regarding tracking requirements for service releases of third pa...2020-11-25T19:34:58ZEclipse WebmasterAdd guidance regarding tracking requirements for service releases of third party content## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#513467)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=513467)**
## Description
During the Eclipse Foundation's Board of Directors meeting in June 2015 [1], the follo...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#513467)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=513467)**
## Description
During the Eclipse Foundation's Board of Directors meeting in June 2015 [1], the following resolution was passed:
RESOLVED, that previously approved dependencies of Eclipse projects can be
reviewed and approved by the EMO as follows:
a) Service releases (e.g. x.y.*, bug fixes, security fixes) will require no review.
b) Minor revisions (e.g. x.*.*) will require a reduced review by the EMO.
c) Major revisions (e.g. *.*.*) will require a full review by the EMO.
At the time the resolution was passed, we decided to interpret this as still requiring that the project team create CQs for service releases that the IP Team approve without (significant) scrutiny. After some reflection, we're dubious of the value of having a CQ for service releases and have decided that--for pure bug-fix-only "service releases"--no CQ is required.
Some thoughts:
* This only applies for bug-fix releases that follow a minor release that's been approved by the IP Due Diligence Process
* Onus is on the project team to determine whether or not a release qualifies.
* Only patch versions greater than what's already been approved apply.
e.g., if we assume that semantic versioning is used, and that version 4.5.0 of some third party content has been approved by the IP team, a project can assume that this approval applies to versions 4.5.1, 4.5.2, ..., 4.5.n (n>0); any new version that changes either the major or minor version, e.g. 4.6.4, must be reviewed.
We need to update the documentation. The section on Third Party Content [2] is probably a good place for it.
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/boardminutes/2015_06_22_Minutes.pdf
[2] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-third-partyhttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/63[nit] Use the term "third party content" instead of "third party library2021-03-24T17:25:49ZEclipse Webmaster[nit] Use the term "third party content" instead of "third party library## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#513468)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=513468)**
## Description## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#513468)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=513468)**
## Descriptionhttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/64Consider creating a handbook for PMCs2020-11-25T19:35:02ZEclipse WebmasterConsider creating a handbook for PMCs## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#514657)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=514657)**
## Description
There are various processes that the PMCs engage in that are not well documented. We s...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#514657)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=514657)**
## Description
There are various processes that the PMCs engage in that are not well documented. We should consider either adding content (e.g. [Bug 508160](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508160)) to the existing handbook, or creating an entirely separate handbook for PMC members.
### Depends on
* [Bug 508160](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508160)