Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan


Hi Henrik,

Rich and I had discussions about the prototype and we decided not to add it to GMF because we could not reach consensus on how to leverage in GMF.

Looking forward to see the real thing in M5 ! :-)

    Thanks

       - Fred

_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada
tel: (613) 591-7034




Henrik Rentz-Reichert <hrr@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/05/2005 03:31 PM

Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions."

To
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [gmf-dev] GMF Plan





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

_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev


Back to the top