Re: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan

[Henrik Rentz-Reichert <hrr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

good to hear that everything moved forward in time again ;-)

@Fred: btw - what about the DSM toolkit aka realm contribution?

Henrik

Frederic Plante wrote:

>
> 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 30^th 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@borland.com_ <mailto: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
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>gmf-dev mailing list
>gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
>  
>

-- 
..................................................
   
 Dr. Henrik Rentz-Reichert  mailto://hrr@xxxxxxxxx

 Hafnerstr. 1               fon +49-7533-9342-43
 D-78476 Allensbach         fax              -44