Community
Participate
Working Groups
EMF Compare 2.1 release planned for Kepler on June 26th IP log has been submitted and forwarded to the IP Team for their review.
As part of this release, let's plan on moving modeling.emf.compare to modeling.compare per Bug 393682.
Wayne, I agree with moving to "modeling.compare" as long as we keep at least the "modeling" prefix : "EMF Compare" is the project name, "compare" would be platform/compare (org.eclipse.compare), which provides textual comparison while we provide model comparison. We've kept "EMF" as our prefix everywhere : website : www.eclipse.org/emf/compare/ git : emfcompare/org.eclipse.emf.compare.git/ plugins namespace : org.eclipse.emf.compare bugzilla component : EMF.Compare ... I think the forum is the only place where we do not have the "EMF" prefix ("Compare" sub-forum of "Modeling").
(In reply to comment #2) > I agree with moving to "modeling.compare" as long as we keep at least the > "modeling" prefix : We could go with modeling.emfcompare or modeling.emf-compare if you'd prefer. > We've kept "EMF" as our prefix everywhere : > website : www.eclipse.org/emf/compare/ Do you want to keep this where it is, or move it to the root (e.g. /emfcompare)? > git : emfcompare/org.eclipse.emf.compare.git/ I'm staring to like modeling.emfcompare more and more. > plugins namespace : org.eclipse.emf.compare > bugzilla component : EMF.Compare > I think the forum is the only place where we do not have the "EMF" prefix > ("Compare" sub-forum of "Modeling").
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I agree with moving to "modeling.compare" as long as we keep at least the > > "modeling" prefix : > > We could go with modeling.emfcompare or modeling.emf-compare if you'd prefer. modeling.emfcompare or modeling.compare are both good, my only point was that we need a prefix, and I think the "long term" here would be to get rid of the "modeling" prefix entirely (?) in which case "modeling.emfcompare" is better. I'll leave the choice to our project lead, Cédric, what would be your choice ;)?
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > I agree with moving to "modeling.compare" as long as we keep at least the > > > "modeling" prefix : > > > > We could go with modeling.emfcompare or modeling.emf-compare if you'd prefer. > > modeling.emfcompare or modeling.compare are both good, my only point was > that we need a prefix, and I think the "long term" here would be to get rid > of the "modeling" prefix entirely (?) in which case "modeling.emfcompare" is > better. > > I'll leave the choice to our project lead, Cédric, what would be your choice > ;)? FWIW, the move review has already completed, so we can effect the necessary changes whenever you're ready. I'd like to have them completed by the end of June (i.e. immediately post Kepler).
Wayne, modeling.emf.compare can be moved to modeling.emfcompare. What will be the implications on our end of the move? Should we take any action or will all of this be handled by you?
(In reply to comment #6) > Wayne, > > modeling.emf.compare can be moved to modeling.emfcompare. > > What will be the implications on our end of the move? Should we take any > action or will all of this be handled by you? I believe that the only real impact will be in a couple of URLs. e.g. http://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.emf.compare will change to: http://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.emfcompare and http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?modeling.emf.compare will change to: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?modeling.emfcompare In short... no big deal, I think. We can take this opportunity to make other changes if you'd like. We can move the project website to the root, for example. Or shift the location of the downloads. It's up to you. Actually, I'd prefer that we move the project website to the root and set up a redirect from the old location.
Hi, The release review material for EMF Compare 2.1 can be found online at http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF_Compare/ReleaseReview/Kepler As for the moves, I quite like the eclipse.org/emf/compare location for the website... Do we need to change? modeling/emf/compare is obsolete and redirected already.
(In reply to comment #8) > Hi, > > The release review material for EMF Compare 2.1 can be found online at > http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF_Compare/ReleaseReview/Kepler Ok. > As for the moves, I quite like the eclipse.org/emf/compare location for the > website... Do we need to change? modeling/emf/compare is obsolete and > redirected already. That works (it's really up to you).
Webmaster, can you please coordinate with Sharon and move modeling.emf.compare to modeling.emfcompare? For completeness, this move was approved by the Modeling Project Restructuring Review captured in Bug 393682.
Webmaster; There is no legal paperwork barrier related to the committers and the renaming of the project. When you have performed your magic, I'll be able to align the CQs in Ipzilla appropriately. Cheers, Sharon IP Team
Ok, I've updated the projectid, group name and bugzilla product id to: modeling.emfcompate and EMFCompare. I let Sharon know so she could get started on the IPzilla end. -M.
Ipzilla has been updated accordingly....My work here is done:-) Thanks, Sharon
(In reply to comment #12) > Ok, I've updated the projectid, group name and bugzilla product id to: > modeling.emfcompate and EMFCompare. There weren't any talk about changing the bugzilla product id though? That's not really an issue, but it is somewhat incoherent with the other namings of 'EMF.EGF' and 'EMF.DiffMerge' (or maybe those are also meant to change?).
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Ok, I've updated the projectid, group name and bugzilla product id to: > > modeling.emfcompate and EMFCompare. > > There weren't any talk about changing the bugzilla product id though? > > That's not really an issue, but it is somewhat incoherent with the other > namings of 'EMF.EGF' and 'EMF.DiffMerge' (or maybe those are also meant to > change?). I like consistency. Do you have an opinion regarding Bugzilla product naming, Ed?
Since the project name has dropped the dot it seemed like it should be dropped for the bugzilla product name. As we move things around in modelling I'd like to see us simplify and move closer to our standard naming policy whenever possible. -M.
(In reply to comment #16) > Since the project name has dropped the dot it seemed like it should be > dropped for the bugzilla product name. > > As we move things around in modelling I'd like to see us simplify and move > closer to our standard naming policy whenever possible. This is a way better answer than mine. +1
Created attachment 231586 [details] Approved IP Log
Documentation: http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF_Compare/ReleaseReview/Kepler PMC Approval: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg02826.html
I declare this review successful! Please continue with your release.
