UCOSP

Undergraduate Capstone Open Source Projects

Status Reports: Feb 15, 2010

Posted by Dwight Deugo on 2010/02/18

Brenda

Status

  • I didn’t look as much into Scheme as I had intended because in our conference call, Wayne mentioned that the code provided likely can’t be committed. I decided to look into some other bugs instead.
  • Submitted a patch for Bug 301718 to update the Build Your First Program cheat sheet.
  • Submitted a patch for Bug 299459 to allow the user to rename files (since refactoring has been removed).

Next Steps

  • This week, I will look into Bug 299869 some more, to potentially make Java Lite the default perspective.

Roadblocks

  • Understanding how plugin_customization.ini works, because this file seems to be the key to accomplishing Bug 299869.

Cory

Status

  • Very little work done for the past week. My other courses have been dropping a heavy workload on me.
  • Conference call was good and answered my outstanding questions; Will have lots of time this week due to start of reading week.

Next Steps

  • Try and knock off 2 outstanding bugs – Bug 299873 (delete on empty workspace) and Bug 299875 (delete key doesn’t work in project explorer).

Roadblocks

  • Other classes

Miles

Status

  • Reading week

Next Steps

Roadblocks


6 Responses to “Status Reports: Feb 15, 2010”

  1. I can’t get any reason as to why the scheme perspective can’t get committed.
    I didn’t find any information on the bugzilla
    https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=293093

    We contacted the author of all component we used to ask their permission and to clarify the license under witch the code was.

    If the goal is to start from scratch because they don’t like the code architecture or would like to l’average more the existing eclipse fondation component it’s nice.

    But it can probably be done by refactoring what we provided or at least by putting the scheme opensource community effort in common.

    I would really appreciate if someone can provide further information on this.

    • cmatheso said

      Hey Maxime,

      I didn’t notice this comment till just now.

      I’m just going to paraphrase, as you will probably want to contact Wayne directly, however it sounded like you guys forked code from (multiple?) existing projects (schemeway in particular?). I believe they are hesitant in commiting it for a couple reasons including:
      – Not wanting to maintain forked code. Say the guys you forked from make changes… we would need to those same bug fixes. This is a maintenance nightmare.
      – Was the sourceforge license for schemeway directly compatible with the eclipse one? (Not sure.. It didn’t sound like it was, and theres no way of verifying what you guys wrote, and what was forked).
      – Also, it sounds like the interpreter license is definitely incompatible, so without an interpreter that fits the eclipse open source license, wayne can’t submit that eitheršŸ˜¦.

      • The only project we used was “Schemeway” under the “Common Public License 1.0” and Dominique Boucher the author of it is fully aware of what we where doing this is not really a fork. See http://theschemeway.blogspot.com/

        Concerning the interpreter we decided to use Kawa because it was the only one with a compatible license “X11/MIT” and implements almost all of R5RS.

        But you can easily change Scheme4Edu to use an other interpreter if you find a better one.

        Starting from scratch is no better than forking in my experience but maybe im wrong.
        Starting from scratch can be necessery if theire is a fondamental flaw in the design of the first version.

        If it’s the case i would like to know what we did wrong.

      • Maxime Caron said

        I don’t want to complain about Wayne!
        He did a really really great job helping us learning the eclipse framework, osgi swt … and managing the project.

        But when i picked the Eclipse4edu project over the other UCOSP projects as was under the impression that the goal of the project was along the line of Google Summer of Code which mean we would not only write throw away code like all our other University homework.

        But now when i look back at it, it seems the goal was much more to get us some exposition to the OpenSource projects management process.

        I only though you might like to know it.

  2. cmatheso said

    Well, I’m not really in a position to commit it either.

    Waynes been really busy the last few weeks.

    Why not post an update to this asking why it hasn’t been committed yet, on the bug itself? Or email the mailing list? Wayne definitely doesn’t read this site, and I’m pretty sure Dwight is just as busy. It may take awhile, but I’m sure someone will get around to answering the question and/or committing it.

    For what its worth, I haven’t heard any mention of a rewrite on the scheme stuff. Our team for this semester has mainly been working on fixing Java Lite bugs.

    • Thanks a lot, this was the kind of feedback i expected.

      So all this is only caused by the fact that the eclipse process are slower than a term for quality assurance reason.

      I was expecting the opensource process to be much faster. But the eclipse project might be special in that it have to ensure strong guarantee about licensing of the code and such to company using the plateform like IBM …

      I looked at what you guy did and it’s great job.
      The learning curve of the eclipse framework is steep but totaly worth it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: