[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[emf-dev] Re: EMF Compare proposal
|
Guys,
I just wanted to let you know that I've
completed this questionnaire which has created the following ipzilla entry
to track the progress on the review process:
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1039
Please let me know if any of the information
I've entered is not 100% accurate.
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/24/2006 10:42 AM
|
Please respond to
PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| stephane.lacrampe@xxxxxxx
|
|
cc
| Jonathan.musset@xxxxxxx, Antoine Toulme
<atoulme@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Etienne Juliot <etienne.juliot@xxxxxxx>,
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
Subject
| [modeling-pmc] Re: EMF Compare proposal |
|
Stephane,
SDO is just a feature within the EMF subproject while XSD is not (although
it is typically treated as if it were; it will be moved to the MDT project).
I think it makes sense to consider the base framework for this proposal
to be part of EMF and to use a base name like org.eclipse.emf.compare.*,
just as we've done forTeneo, CDO/Net4J, and some of the other components
in EMFT that will move to EMF. In terms of visibility, that's "just"
a matter of ensuring that the websites have an organizational structure
that makes all the interesting things easy to find. We definitely
need to work on that. So I think it makese sense to consider this
to be a component within EMF rather than trying to create a new subproject
within the modeling project. Is that okay?
Given that Rich and I both approve I wanted to give the other folks on
the PMC a chance to comment. If everyone is fine with moving forward,
the next step would be to fill out this questionnaire
https://dev.eclipse.org/committers/committertools/cq_part1.php
So let's give folks a bit of time (a day) to respond, and then we should
proceed with the above form. Silence will be interpreted as agreement...
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
| Stéphane LACRAMPE <stephane.lacrampe@xxxxxxx>
10/24/2006 10:24 AM
|
Please respond to
stephane.lacrampe@xxxxxxx |
|
|
To
| Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
| Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Antoine
Toulme <atoulme@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Etienne Juliot <etienne.juliot@xxxxxxx>,
Jonathan.musset@xxxxxxx
|
|
Subject
| Re: EMF Compare proposal |
|
Hi All,
Imo, the scope that we are trying to embrace with the EMF Compare project
is quite large and this project will require quite some work and the involvement
of several parties. This is not just about merging a couple of plugins
but having an extensible framework where third parties can plug their diff
engine, and having good UIs that plugs with the Eclipse team system for
optimal user experience. And then having extension in the future in MDT
for specific meta-models (uml...). I think that this is what came out from
the Eclipse Symposium if I am not mistaken ?
So I think a subproject (like SDO/XSD) would make it definitely easier
for us to manage all that and to give the appropriate visibility to all
the involved parties.
Regards,
Stephane
Richard Gronback a écrit :
Hi Ed,
I’m not sure we need a formal proposal, as this contribution fits into
the scope of EMF. So, it’s a component and not a subproject, imo.
According to the poster (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf),
we’ll need PMC approval (I guess that’s essentially done), attach the
contribution to bugzilla, fill out the contribution questionnaire, then
get Committer rights for those who will maintain it.
Regarding graphical Ecore modeling, wouldn’t that be better housed within
MDT? If you use one based on GMF, then an EMF component has a dependency
on GMF’s runtime, which seems odd.
Best,
Rich
On 10/24/06 9:39 AM, "Ed Merks" <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Rich,
The guys on the CC list have worked on the project proposal attached at
the bottom of this note. The proposal is to create a new feature/component
within the EMF project to support compare/diff/merge. The project
will be seeded with the contributions in these bugzillas:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=157166
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=161382
Clearly these will need legal review, and since that can take quite some
time, I'd like to kick that off sooner rather than later...
Does all this seem fine to you? Given that the EMO doesn't recognize
subsubprojects, I'm not sure what processes we need to follow to provision
this new component within the existing EMF project. The same issue
will come up for graphical Ecore editing. Probably we should ask
Bjorn for his advice, but I want to be sure you're okay with everything
we have so far before taking that next step...
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
----- Forwarded by Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM on 10/24/2006 09:29 AM -----
Stéphane LACRAMPE <stephane.lacrampe@xxxxxxx>
10/24/2006 09:25 AM
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Antoine Toulme <atoulme@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Etienne Juliot <etienne.juliot@xxxxxxx>,
Jonathan.musset@xxxxxxx
Re: EMF Compare proposal
Hi Ed,
You will find a pdf version of the document I sent you.
FYI, the document I sent was an Open Office document, sorry I assumed that
you would have that !
Please get back to me if you have any question regarding the content of
the proposal.
If I understood the things well at the Eclipse summit, the idea with this
proposal was to create an EMF sub-project, and the process was to write
a project proposal and then to have it approved. That's why I was going
through the EMO stuff so that we can create this sub-project.
In the meantime, we have submitted our code in the bugzilla and related
our bug to the Antoine's one.
Cheers
Stephane
Ed Merks a écrit :
Stephane,
Sorry, I'm not sure how to view that odt attachment you sent in the other
note. I unzipped it, but there are only .xml files not .html files
in there, so I'm not sure how to view those in a human readable way.
Could I ask that you resend the proposal in a form that I can easily
consume or ask that you provide instructions for how to view what you did
send? (Sorry, I know that I'm being kind of stupid.)
I suspect that we do not need to get the EMO's approval to create a new
component within EMF which clearly falls within EMF's existing scope. We
will need to get legal clearance for code contributions. Once I have
a good sense of where this is going, I can talk to Rich and Bjorn about
how best to ensure that we follow all the proper processes (which seem
to change quite often and often don't cover corner cases). Sending
something directly to the EMO will likely confuse the heck out of them
and put them in a bad mood before the discussion even starts, so I want
to be really careful to ask what the right thing to do is before doing
anything....
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx>
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
Stéphane LACRAMPE <stephane.lacrampe@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:stephane.lacrampe@xxxxxxx>
10/24/2006 08:48 AM
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
EMF Compare proposal
Hi Ed,
I am about to send the mail to EMO for the EMF Compare project proposal.
I just wanted to check with you that everything was ok with the proposal.
Cheers,
[attachment "stephane.lacrampe.vcf" deleted by Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM]
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215[attachment "stephane.lacrampe.vcf" deleted by
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM] _______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
