[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Good to me, thanks!
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/05/2005 12:39 PM
|
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." |
|
|
To
| "GMF Project developer
discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan |
|
Great, we’re getting closer…
J
a)
Well,
nothing says we have to wait to build against the platform, emf, and gef
before the +2 week timeframe, just that we need to release our milestone
by that time. I expect we’ll be building against them as soon as
they are available, which gives us the same amount of time as anyone to
report defects, right? If we can release our milestone build the
day after EMF/GEF, I’m for that. ;)
b)
Doh!
I must be thinking about the holidays already, which made me ignore the
possibility of a Dec. 16 + 2 week milestone ;-) Excellent, we’ll
move them all up a milestone, which should take care of the other issues
you raised.
c)
Agreed.
d)
Agreed.
e)
Right,
if they all shift up a milestone, we should be good.
f)
I
still need to touch base with our localization team, but happy to have
help localizing for sure.
So, this leaves us with a Dec
30th milestone to cover Functional, Bootstrap in February, Hatch
in April, and spend the platform’s RC0 timeframe bug fixing, polishing,
etc.
If this sounds OK, I’ll clean
this up and put into a document we can post on the GMF website.
Thanks again,
Rich
From: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frederic Plante
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:23 PM
To: GMF Project developer discussions.
Subject: RE: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan
Thanks Rich,
More comments:
a) The comment about defect fixes is more about Eclipse platform defects.
If we are +2, it means it will take at minimum 2w for us to use a fix we
raise against platform. Having one less week would be much more useful.I
guess we could be +2 but execute as a +1.1 by adopting EMF/GEF as soon
as they adopt a new platform. How about that?
b) Hey buddy, you skipped Eclipse's M4 :-) Look at http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/eclipse_project_plan_3_2.html,
Platform's M4 is Dec. 16th. This would align very well to our original
GMF M1.
c) All we need is to "insert" the Eclipse's M4 milestone, the
other milestones are probably close enough until we get the official platform
plan.
d) Then it seems we could easily formalize the April Milestone as our FF
e) Graphical editors will very likely uncover many workflow issues/defects
given it is a major feature. Introducing them in the last feature milestone
is risky. Shouldn't we commit to something "Milestonable" earlier
like in your proposed mid-Feb milestone?
f) As long as in our v1.0 GM we support everything a tool project needs
to support, such as languages and platforms, then this is fine. BTW: Any
update from Borland about IBM's offer to perform all translation for GMF's
documentation?
About verbosity and clarity balance, that's not the issue, I am just being
a difficult teammate :-)
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada
tel: (613) 591-7034
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/05/2005 10:56 AM
|
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." |
|
|
To
| "GMF Project
developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan |
|
Hi Fred,
Thanks for the feedback. I have some additional information below.
a)
I think you’re (or
I am) misunderstanding what +1 vs. +2 means. In the Planning Council
discussions, it meant that as there are natural dependencies on other projects,
there is a necessary staggering of delivery of milestones to allow for
a project to accept the dependent milestones. So, in our case, as
we’re dependent upon EMF and GEF (primarily), we will need to allow them
to take their week after the platform in order to produce their milestone,
which gives us a week after receiving EMF + GEF milestones to produce our
milestone. It has nothing to do with getting defect fixes faster,
really.
b)
As stated below,
there will be functional capabilities of GMF builds present by the end
of Q405. But, there is no milestone to align with at this point,
so we went with the next one available.
c)
Actually, the milestones
below do align with the platform milestones, but with a 2 week stagger,
as described in a). Technically, the platform milestones are not
yet published, but the dates I used are in line with what was discussed
at the Planning Council meeting. I expect to update them when they
are firm, or we can remove dates all together and just think +2 weeks after
platform (or ASAP after EMF + GEF, as I think of it).
d)
The Platform’s end
game was extended explicitly for the purpose of getting themselves stable
and to allow for the train projects to align for a synchronized release.
I don’t feel GMF will need this amount of end game in order to have
its 1.0 release ready. Also, as stated, our final milestone will
be more of a cleanup and preparation of APIs and exit of incubation. I
don’t foresee major functionality coming in the last milestone period.
e)
To me, having it
“ready” will occur well before the milestone date. The milestone
releases are intended to be mini-releases in themselves, so I expect the
level of quality at each to be production quality. I expect we will
have suitable graphical capabilities in time for EclipseCon 2006.
f)
I do not recall
the goal of becoming a Tools project for Eclipse 3.2. I believe we
should aspire to exit incubation in parallel with developing our 1.0 release.
Technically, according to the guidelines, we need to exit incubation
before we can release a 1.0 version. We can worry about transitioning
to another PMC afterwards.
I hope this helps to clarify some of what’s below… I guess I need to
find a better balance between verbosity and clarity J.
Best Regards,
Rich
From: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Frederic Plante
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:29 AM
To: GMF Project developer discussions.
Subject: Re: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan
Hi Richard,
We have quite a few concerns with this plan:
a) Seems GMF should be a +1 project to allow us to get EMF/GEF/Platform
defects fixes faster.
b) Our original goal for M1 was 4Q05, now it seems it moved 2 months later.
c) Post-GMF M1, we were supposed to follow Eclipse's milestones which
are 6 weeks apart each, the proposed schedule does not align with Eclipse's
milestones.
d) Eclipse will go feature freeze around April and then get into shutdown
mode until June. We should align to this as well if we want a productizable
tool
e) If we only plan to have graphical support "ready" in April,
not only will we miss EclipseCon, but we will not have time to make that
major feature product quality by GM
f) Our original goal was to become a Tool project for Eclipse
3.2. What is proposed here is to become a tool after 3.2.
In summary, it is proposed that we:
1) Become a +1 project
2) Follow Eclipse's Milestones (including names as you suggested)
3) Target Eclipse M4 for what we called our GMF M1 back in Prague
4) Target Eclipse M5 for our graphical surfaces. This should allow us
to have something for EclipseCon
5) Target Eclipse M5 to become a Tool project (the result of M5 should
be good enough to request the move to a Tool project immediately after
M5)
6) Align GMF's feature freeze with Platform's FF
It is very conceivable that we will fail to produce the product quality
tooling expected from the community for Eclipse 3.2 should GMF not commit
to the above recommendations.
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada
tel: (613) 591-7034
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/05/2005 09:15 AM
|
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." |
|
|
To
| "GMF Project
developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [gmf-dev] GMF Plan |
|
Hi All,
As you know, GMF is part of the 3.2 release train which means beginning
with the November 4th M3 milestone, we will need to be providing our own
milestone builds. GMF is a +2 project, which means our milestones
must be available within 2 weeks of the platform. EMF and GEF are
both +1 projects, giving them 1 week after the platform (so, each dependency
level gets a week).
Below is a proposed set of milestone dates and high level goals. I’ve
added 2 weeks (more or less) to each platform milestone date, with the
exception of the final one, which is the same as the platform. Let
me know what you think of these:
M3 - Nov 18, 2005:
Theme: Clean - By clean I mean that our code needs to be properly copyrighted,
cleansed of commercial names, follow the prescribed naming conventions,
all build artifacts need to install and function, no deprecated API usage,
etc. Basic functionality will be present, although the following
milestone will focus on this aspect.
M4 - Feb 24, 2006:
Theme: Functional - By functional, I mean it should work end-to-end, with
attention paid to those requirements we marked as M1 during the kickoff
meeting. It is expected that builds prior to this (by end of ’05
as discussed at kickoff) will have this ability, but the M4 milestone will
be more complete in this respect.
M5 - Apr 14, 2006:
Theme: Bootstrapped - Our graphical surfaces for definition and mapping
should be bootstrapped by this time, representing one aspect of "exemplary
tools" by the project, not to mention the ‘consume our own output’
aspect.
1.0 - June 30, 2006:
Theme: Ready to Hatch - Meaning that we should be ready for transitioning
out of incubation. See guidelines on what this involves. A
big part of this will be our APIs, meaning we should eliminate "provisional"
APIs, look at extension points and their documentation, etc.
I'm not sure we should or need to have a dummy set of milestones to represent
M1 and M2, but I think our milestone numbers should be in synch with the
platform's, which is why we start with M3. Thoughts?
I will configure the build to start using the Platform, EMF, and GEF milestone
builds shortly.
Thanks,
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
