Community
Participate
Working Groups
We'll use this bug to track the QVTO 3.3 release for Kepler. Sergey submitted the IP Log; I have reviewed it an forwarded it to the IP Team for their review. Note that per Bug 393682, the Modeling project has been restructured and mid-level "container" projects (e.g. modeling.emf, modeling.emft, etc.) have been marked for termination. This project will have to be moved into the top level project. In all likelihood, very little about the project will have to change. We need to enumerate and effect those changes before this review can be declared successful. As part of this move, does it make sense to change the short name of the project as well? e.g. change modeling.mmt.qvt-oml to modeling.qvto ? With this move, the project id will change. This means that the project info page URL, IP Log generator URL, etc. will change. The project website is currently at /mmt/qvto. Does it make sense to move this to /qvto? Project bundles include 'm2m' in the name; project downloads are nested under 'mmt'. Whether or not you want to change these is entirely a project decision. Have I missed anything?
(In reply to comment #0) > e.g. change modeling.mmt.qvt-oml to modeling.qvto ? > > With this move, the project id will change. This means that the project info > page URL, IP Log generator URL, etc. will change. It will also break all facilities such as Download pages provided by the hierarchical Modeling website. My understanding is that there is as yet no replacement for this. So a website move is not possible. > The project website is currently at /mmt/qvto. Does it make sense to move > this to /qvto? Yes from me. > > Project bundles include 'm2m' in the name; project downloads are nested > under 'mmt'. Whether or not you want to change these is entirely a project > decision. THe revisions to exploit Xtext are generating new org.eclipse.qvto plugins. IN a few years the m2m plugins may be obsolete. But not till then. > > Have I missed anything? Yes and No. The forums and mailing lists remain MMT contained since there is no redirect capability. Bugzilla will become a nightmare if there are 50 top level modeling projects. MMT.QVTo works better. (The migration of MDT/* to MDT.* demonstrated the stupidity of this flattening.)
Hi Wayne, (In reply to comment #0) > We'll use this bug to track the QVTO 3.3 release for Kepler. > > Sergey submitted the IP Log; I have reviewed it an forwarded it to the IP > Team for their review. > > Note that per Bug 393682, the Modeling project has been restructured and > mid-level "container" projects (e.g. modeling.emf, modeling.emft, etc.) have > been marked for termination. This project will have to be moved into the top > level project. In all likelihood, very little about the project will have to > change. We need to enumerate and effect those changes before this review can > be declared successful. > > As part of this move, does it make sense to change the short name of the > project as well? > > e.g. change modeling.mmt.qvt-oml to modeling.qvto ? Yes, I think it makes sence. First, I like the idea to use 'qvto' instead of 'qvt-oml'. Second, as since "container' project will be terminated it's better to exclude '.mmt' package from name. > > With this move, the project id will change. This means that the project info > page URL, IP Log generator URL, etc. will change. > > The project website is currently at /mmt/qvto. Does it make sense to move > this to /qvto? Again I think it makes sence. > > Project bundles include 'm2m' in the name; project downloads are nested > under 'mmt'. Whether or not you want to change these is entirely a project > decision. Will be done after Kepler release. > > Have I missed anything? Seems nothing since all other changes in naming is not mandatory right now.
(In reply to comment #2) > Hi Wayne, > > As part of this move, does it make sense to change the short name of the > > project as well? > > > > e.g. change modeling.mmt.qvt-oml to modeling.qvto ? > > Yes, I think it makes sence. Sergey; did you see my response? QVTo reuses the hierarchical EMF modeling support, for which there is no replacement. Changing the hierarchy will break downloads, updates and build promotions. During the RC* phase is absolutely not the right time to be rewriting builds.
Created attachment 231631 [details] Approved IP Log
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Hi Wayne, > > > As part of this move, does it make sense to change the short name of the > > > project as well? > > > > > > e.g. change modeling.mmt.qvt-oml to modeling.qvto ? > > > > Yes, I think it makes sence. > > Sergey; did you see my response? > > QVTo reuses the hierarchical EMF modeling support, for which there is no > replacement. Changing the hierarchy will break downloads, updates and build > promotions. During the RC* phase is absolutely not the right time to be > rewriting builds. Hi Ed, I was looking at UML project (Bug 408603). As far as I understood changing of project id does not necessarily lead to changing of downloads url. Recent comments on the mentioned bug show that community decided to postpone all changes until Kepler. Or at least wait and see results on EMF Compare move operation. Let's wait and see. Btw, what is your decision on OCL move (Bug 408856)? I didn't see comments there.
It is http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/downloads/?project=ocl that is magic. It somehow constructs modeling.mdt.ocl. I know that even the sideways move from m2m to mmt took me a long time to resolve.
The modeling project's web infrastructure was not created, nor is it supported by the Eclipse Foundation. It's also magic to me. My personal recommendation is to create a download page, or use the Download support features from the PMI to create an independent download experience. If there's some addition that we can make to the PMI that will make managing your downloads easier, please open a bug. I've added a little documentation describing downloads in the PMI. http://wiki.eclipse.org/Project_Management_Infrastructure/Project_Metadata#Downloads
I'm not a PHP expert, so I just try to copy/modify. I eventually learned to adjust and half understand the modeling hierarchy. It seems to have some good features for configurability. I'm waiting to see a reasonable consensus on modeling projects so that there is something new to copy. I'm not going to create from scratch.
(In reply to comment #8) > I'm not a PHP expert, so I just try to copy/modify. > > I eventually learned to adjust and half understand the modeling hierarchy. > It seems to have some good features for configurability. > > I'm waiting to see a reasonable consensus on modeling projects so that there > is something new to copy. I'm not going to create from scratch. The offer to extend the PMI to take care of this stands. I just need some requirements. This is probably not the right place to discuss it. I suggest that we move this discussion to Bug 207108.
(In reply to comment #4) > Created attachment 231631 [details] > Approved IP Log Review documentation: http://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.mmt.qvt-oml/reviews/3.3.0-release-review
PMC Approval request is here: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg02867.html Please let me know when you get a +1 from the PMC.
(In reply to comment #11) > PMC Approval request is here: > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg02867.html > > Please let me know when you get a +1 from the PMC. Just got +1 from Ed Merks.
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > PMC Approval request is here: > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg02867.html > > > > Please let me know when you get a +1 from the PMC. > > Just got +1 from Ed Merks. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg02869.html
I declare this review successful! Please continue with your release. Please assemble a list of action items to complete the move of this project. There are a few projects that need to move, so let's wait until we have all/most of them ready to go before we copy the webmaster and ask him to effect the changes all at once.
(In reply to comment #14) > Please assemble a list of action items to complete the move of this project. > There are a few projects that need to move, so let's wait until we have all/most > of them ready to go before we copy the webmaster and ask him to effect the > changes all at once. I've changed my mind. I'll leave it to the Modeling PMC's discretion to determine how to implement the moves defined by the Modeling Restructuring (Bug 393682). Since the release is complete, I'm marking this bug as FIXED.
