[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
|
Hi Sven,
There's never a problem with incoming links, and nothing that could be done
to prevent it anyway ;)
Given the timeframe you discussed in the other reply, I don't see a problem
here. The topic of projects/components/subprojects should be resolved by
then, as should the brand issue.
Thanks,
Rich
On 4/6/08 6:20 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, this sounds good to me, too.
> The idea was to put openArchitectureWare as a component under Modeling/
> Amalgamation. I don't know if a component already formally is a
> project. But maybe it would make sense to either change the guide
> lines so that component names are being protected as well or just call
> them projects. I think there are many components with names and logos
> worth being protected (e.g. in modeling there are Xtext, ATL, TCS,
> Xpand, etc.).
> As Ed already mentioned currently there is no protection for the
> brand. Of course there is a copyright for the logo. It was created by
> itemis so it wouldn't be much of a problem to put it under EPL and
> contribute it.
> I'm the owner of the openarchitectureware.org domain, and would of
> course assign it to the foundation as well.
> Would it be ok, to let www.openarchitectureware.org point to the
> project's web site at eclipse.org (similar to aspectj.org)?
>
> thanks,
> Sven
>
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 13:39 , Richard Gronback wrote:
>> This sounds fine to me. But more importantly, what do the oAW guys
>> think?
>>
>> Best,
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 4/5/08 7:23 AM, "Ed Merks" <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the excellent details!
>>>
>>> I know Rich is generally in favor of promoting a merged common
>>> identity so
>>> would like to see oAW blend right in to a great extent. Hence
>>> doing (2)(a)
>>> does not have much appeal to him (to put words in his mouth). Of
>>> course
>>> I tend to agree with that, but I do fully recognize that if you
>>> have a
>>> brand like IBM or Borland, there's no danger of your brand
>>> disappearing of
>>> the face of the earth, while the oAW folks are a small group who have
>>> worked hard to build world class reputation around the technology
>>> associated with the oAW brand. So I think it's in their best
>>> interests to
>>> follow your advice. I believe they currently have effectively no
>>> protection for their brand and hence pretty much anyone could use
>>> or abuse
>>> it. So doing (1) will help them/us be able to assert that only those
>>> involved in developing and/or distributing the Modeling
>>> projects/technologies at/from Eclipse will be able to use exploit
>>> this
>>> brand.
>>>
>>> If I've mischaracterized anyone's position or thinking, please
>>> correct
>>> me....
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mike
>>> Milinkovich"
>>>
>>> <mike.milinkovich To
>>> @eclipse.org> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
>>> <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> 04/04/2008
>>> 11:28 cc
>>> AM "'Amalgamation project
>>> developer
>>> mailing list'"
>>> <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Please respond to <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ,
>>> <mike.milinkovich "'Janet Campbell'"
>>> @eclipse.org> <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>> RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>>> Amalgam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed,
>>>
>>> We are definitely interested. Please don't interpret this thread as
>>> saying
>>> that we are not interested in seeing this happen.
>>>
>>> Just to clarify this a wee bit more.
>>>
>>> We (the Eclipse Foundation) do not assert trademarks for names
>>> other than
>>> those listed in our current trademark guidelines[1]. Those currently
>>> include:
>>>
>>> * Eclipse
>>> * Eclipse Foundation Member
>>> * Built on Eclipse
>>> * Eclipse Ready
>>> * Eclipse Incubation and Eclipse Proposal
>>> * and all --project-- names and logos
>>>
>>> We don't see where to currently fit oAW on this list. In other
>>> words, we
>>> can
>>> own the mark, but we have no process in place to protect or assert
>>> the
>>> mark.
>>> But we (the EMO) agree that having oAW as an Eclipse trademark
>>> would be
>>> helpful in clarifying that oAW is part of the Eclipse community. We
>>> would
>>> like to help. There are things we can do:
>>>
>>> (1) The existing owners of the oAW trademark and logo and
>>> domain
>>> name(s) assigned them the Eclipse Foundation. This will involve a
>>> transfer
>>> agreement and some expense on the Foundation's part to search for
>>> other
>>> users of the mark.
>>> (2) We (Eclipse) then do one of the following actions to
>>> protect the
>>> mark:
>>> (a) we create a project called
>>> "openArchitectureWare" so it
>>> fits into the existing framework
>>> (b) we amend the trademark guidelines to
>>> add oAW
>>> as a
>>> special case - a uniquely listed and protected mark
>>> (c) we amend the trademark guidelines to
>>> add the
>>> concept
>>> that package names can be trademarks of the Eclipse Foundation in
>>> the same
>>> way that project names are protected today.
>>>
>>> My personal preference would be to do (1) and (2)(c) in parallel.
>>> (2)(c)
>>> will take some time, but I can easily imagine that over time there
>>> will be
>>> other packages which will want to have an interesting name and
>>> identity. It
>>> would be a worthy enhancement to the trademark guidelines.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php
>>>
>>> Mike Milinkovich
>>> Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
>>> Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
>>> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 10:49 AM
>>>> To: ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: 'Amalgamation project developer mailing list'; bjorn.freeman-
>>>> benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Janet Campbell'; mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
>>>>
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> No, oAW is a collection of technologies that started in GMT and
>>>> are now
>>>> distributed across the modeling project in their appropriate
>>>> categories.
>>>> Xpand in M2T, MWE in EMFT, Xtext in TMF...
>>>>
>>>> Probably it's best to think of oAW as the name of a "project"
>>>> denoting
>>>> an
>>>> EPP subset of things that Amalgam provides. So you're saying that
>>>> unless
>>>> we create a component/project within Amalgam that's named oAW, the
>>>> foundation is not interested in the issue and has no problems with
>>>> the
>>>> oAW
>>>> brand/logo being used on Eclipse pages? That's okay with me too if
>>>> it's
>>>> not an issue that will resurface in the future when "member value
>>>> through
>>>> advertisement" becomes an issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>>> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ian Skerrett"
>>>> <ian.skerrett@ecl
>>>> ipse.org>
>>>> To
>>>> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
>>>> "'Janet
>>>> 04/04/2008 09:30 Campbell'"
>>>> AM <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> cc
>>>> "'Amalgamation project
>>>> developer
>>>> Please respond to mailing list'"
>>>> <ian.skerrett@ecl <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> ipse.org> <bjorn.freeman-
>>>> benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Subject
>>>> RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>>>> Amalgam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed,
>>>>
>>>> Is oAW now an Eclipse project within the modeling project. I see
>>>> we
>>>> have
>>>> this component in GMT http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/oaw/ but there is
>>>> also
>>>> http://www.openarchitectureware.org/.
>>>>
>>>> We assert trademark ownership over Eclipse project names. I
>>>> don't see
>>>> how
>>>> we could claim a trademark on something that is not an Eclipse
>>>> project.
>>>>
>>>> Make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 9:03 AM
>>>> To: Janet Campbell
>>>> Cc: 'Amalgamation project developer mailing list';
>>>> bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
>>>>
>>>> Janet,
>>>>
>>>> No. The oAW folks would like to create an EPP package that's a
>>>> subset
>>>> of
>>>> the components that Amalgam as a whole will provide, as well as
>>>> some,
>>>> what
>>>> they're calling "glue" code for integrating other "parts of oAW"
>>>> that
>>>> are
>>>> currently (and will always be) in other existing projects, e.g., an
>>>> Eclipse
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an example of Xpand:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/m2t/?project=xpand
>>>>
>>>> Notice how the page describes it this way:
>>>>
>>>> Xpand is the code generation language from Open ArchitectureWare
>>>> (oAW).
>>>>
>>>> One might interpret this as adverstising a commerical brand. So our
>>>> collective desire is to see oAW and its existing logos be properly
>>>> "registered" as trademarks of the Eclipse foundation so that any
>>>> mention of
>>>> them and use of their logos cannot be intepretted as commerical
>>>> advertisement...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>>> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Janet Campbell"
>>>> <janet.campbell@e
>>>> clipse.org>
>>>> To
>>>> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
>>>> 04/04/2008 08:36 "'Amalgamation project
>>>> developer
>>>> AM mailing list'"
>>>> <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> cc
>>>> <bjorn.freeman-
>>>> benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>
>>>> <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Subject
>>>> RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>>>> Amalgam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>
>>>> Could you clarify for us - is the proposal to rename the Amalgam
>>>> project to
>>>> OpenArchitectureWare?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Janet
>>>>
>>>> Janet Campbell
>>>> Phone: +1.613.224.9461, x.229 (GMT -5)
>>>> Fax: +1.613.224.5172
>>>> janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:31 AM
>>>> To: Amalgamation project developer mailing list
>>>> Cc: bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; Janet Campbell
>>>> Subject: Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
>>>>
>>>> Bjorn/Janet,
>>>>
>>>> We're curious what concrete steps need to be taken to ensure that
>>>> the
>>>> oAW
>>>> brand is contributed to Eclipse as an Eclipse brand, much in the
>>>> same
>>>> way
>>>> that the tigerstripe commericial brand was donated? Could you guys
>>>> please
>>>> help us with that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>>> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Gronback
>>>> <richard.gronback
>>>> @borland.com>
>>>> To
>>>> Sent by: Amalgamation project developer
>>>> amalgam-dev-bounc mailing list
>>>> es@xxxxxxxxxxx <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> cc
>>>>
>>>> 04/03/2008 06:59
>>>> Subject
>>>> AM Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>>>> Amalgam
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> Amalgamation
>>>> project developer
>>>> mailing list
>>>> <amalgam-dev@ecli
>>>> pse.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sven,
>>>>
>>>> I guess the next steps are to do whatever is required to resolve the
>>>> branding issue, and to provide a patch through Bugzilla for the UI
>>>> elements
>>>> that would be included in the oAW download.
>>>>
>>>> This week I'm looking into build and packaging options, and would
>>>> also
>>>> like
>>>> to install all of the modeling components and take a close look at
>>>> the
>>>> current state of all our UI elements.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/3/08 3:48 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rich,
>>>>> Great!
>>>>> oAW has always been highly extensible. It is for example shipped as
>>>>> part of MID's Innovator.
>>>>> Other product vendors are also working on integrating it.
>>>> (Ultimately,
>>>>> we'ld love to see every development product on this planet having
>>>>> oAW
>>>>> integrated :-))
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do we agree on making oAW an eclipse brand and creating a
>>>>> corresponding component (or subproject) under Amalgamation?
>>>>> What could be the next step to push this forward?
>>>>>
>>>>> atb,
>>>>> Sven
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 2008, at 17:57 , Richard Gronback wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Sven,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems we are not disagreeing. I understand the history of the
>>>> oAW
>>>>>> brand issue, and if it becomes an Eclipse brand, we're all set.
>>>>>> Otherwise, we
>>>>>> return to an old discussion about marketing value, commercial vs.
>>>>>> non-commercial, vs. academic, etc. that I'd like to avoid
>>>> altogether.
>>>>>> Most contributions at Eclipse have shed their previous
>>>>>> branding/identity, by the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Components is the way to go, or whatever we call them based on the
>>>>>> ongoing discussion of project, subproject, component, etc. What
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> saying mostly is that they will depend on a common core, from the
>>>>>> start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding product vs. project, if what is used by the end user
>>>>>> community is not built upon an extensible framework that is
>>>>>> consumable by the adopter community, you're not truly living up to
>>>>>> the responsibility of being an Eclipse project. We're not here to
>>>>>> simply give away tooling, but to support the three defined
>>>>>> communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/2/08 11:31 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rich,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> please find my comments inlined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have a problem with having components within Amalgam
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> represent specific workflows with corresponding download
>>>>>>>> configurations. For example, an oAW component that includes
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> you list below, or one that covers GMF, Xpand, and QVTO.
>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>> the brand "oAW" seems to not be the most descriptive (it's quite
>>>>>>>> vague).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it's not descriptive.
>>>>>>> I don't want to discuss it like that. I think it's clear what
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> about:
>>>>>>> We've been developing under this brand for several years. At some
>>>>>>> point we started to contribute all our technologies to Eclipse
>>>>>>> Modeling. So now there's only the brand left as well as the
>>>>>>> mentioned integration code and some components wich of course
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> fit into some of our projects (e.g. emft).
>>>>>>> We put a lot of work into the brand and simply don't want to
>>>>>>> throw
>>>>>>> it away. Instead we want to contribute it to Eclipse Modeling as
>>>> well.
>>>>>>> It wouldn't be "our" (oAW guys) brand anymore but "ours" (Eclipse
>>>>>>> Modeling Guys) ;-). And of course it won't just consist of the X-
>>>>>>> Stuff from oAW but instead would include GMF, EMF, most of the
>>>>>>> EMFT
>>>>>>> components as well as UML2. So it's one possible "amalgamation"
>>>>>>> named oAW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, I can't think of anything more descriptive than
>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>> the "X Modeling" configuration (Xpand, Xtend, Xtext ;). I
>>>>>>>> know Ed
>>>>>>>> is keen on seeing the oAW brand become an Eclipse brand, similar
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> what Tigerstripe did, afaiu. In that case, I'm fine with the
>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>> within Amalgam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Tigerstripe really is a product.
>>>>>>> oAW is more like AspectJ which has also been an open-source
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>> before it came to Eclipse (if i remember correctly).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I don't want are a bunch of contributions that live in
>>>>>>>> isolation and are not consumable by an adopter, or easily
>>>>>>>> separated. Amalgam is not delivering "products," but
>>>>>>>> deliverables
>>>>>>>> that can be consumed by an adopter, while also improving the
>>>>>>>> experience of the end user community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, we don't want to see a bunch of contributions
>>>>>>> livinig in
>>>>>>> isolation, too. The only code really would be the
>>>>>>> "amalgamation"-code already mentioned.
>>>>>>> I don't know what you think what "product" exactly means to you,
>>>> but
>>>>>>> if you don't want to provide a usable piece of software under
>>>>>>> Eclipse Modeling I'm a bit confused of what amalgamation is
>>>>>>> really
>>>> about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Understandably, I believe in supporting all 3 communities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, the approach I'd like to take with Amalgam is to first form
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> base, allowing for extensions that form a set of preconfigured
>>>>>>>> downloads (oAW being perhaps the first, as you guys are
>>>>>>>> able/willing to contribute).
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, inspired by the release train requirements list,
>>>>>>>> if a
>>>>>>>> project does not conform to the proper UI guidelines and make
>>>>>>>> filtering by way of capabilities possible (for example), they
>>>> won't
>>>>>>>> be part of Amalgam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, we really want to provide a good eclipse-ish open-source
>>>>>>> solution for MDD.
>>>>>>> No extra oAW stuff, just a composition of proven Eclipse
>>>>>>> technology
>>>>>>> and some glue code to improve the user's experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO separate components in Amalgamation would be helpful,
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> then we could have a lead, newsgroup, mailing-list and repository
>>>>>>> for each component. Of course you as the project lead should
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> keep everything in sync, eclipse-ish and the way we all want it
>>>>>>> to
>>>> be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/08 9:08 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Rich,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the code we're talking about is integration code like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - an oAW perspective
>>>>>>>>> - wizards covering several components at once
>>>>>>>>> - cheat sheets and documentation covering the whole stack
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to have such code in a CVS under
>>>> amalgamation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the remaining glue code, I can't imagine there is much
>>>>>>>>> here. I'd
>>>>>>>>>> like to see a base set of Modeling glue that can be used by
>>>>>>>>> adopters, with
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps some specific code to accompany each distro. In the
>>>> case
>>>>>>>>> of oAW,
>>>>>>>>>> how is it not just a general Modeling collection that favors
>>>>>>>>>> Xpand
>>>>>>>>> over JET,
>>>>>>>>>> Xtend over ATL, Xtext over TCS, etc.? As discussed at
>>>>>>>>>> EclipseCon,
>>>>>>>>> why not a
>>>>>>>>>> general solution that enables/disables capabilities to allow
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> user to
>>>>>>>>>> select the tool collection they prefer? In this way, each
>>>> distro
>>>>>>>>> may define
>>>>>>>>>> a set of defaults, and perhaps some minimal branding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> amalgam-dev mailing list
> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
