[mdt-ocl.dev] RE: Backwards compatibility for MDT OCL

[Alexander Igdalov <Alexander.Igdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your reply. It's great news that releasing MDT OCL 1.4.0 from branch shouldn't cause additional hidden problems.

I should have provided a link to the discussion thread explaining why we are considering 3.0.0 rather than 2.0.0. (http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/mdt-ocl.dev/msg00130.html and now also http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/mdt-ocl.dev/msg00137.html). Still the version number is under discussion.

As regards Athena, it looks promising - I will investigate it after I return from my vacation.

Thanks again,
Alex.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Boldt [mailto:nickboldt@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:45 PM
To: Alexander Igdalov
Cc: mdt.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Backwards compatibility for MDT OCL

My codeslave address stopped working when I left IBM. Gmail will continue to work, or you can reach me via the contact info here:
http://nick.divbyzero.com

Building from branch for a .0 should be just as easy as doing maintenance.

Why are you doing 3.0.0 rather than 2.0.0?

Also, would you be interested in moving from the Modeling build to the new Athena system? It's more efficient and allows you to profile your builds (warnings, errors, tests) with Hudson.

N

On 7/22/09, Alexander Igdalov <Alexander.Igdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Forwarding to Nick's gmail address since 
> codeslave@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:codeslave@xxxxxxxxxx> seems not to exist 
> anymore.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mdt-ocl.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:mdt-ocl.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alexander 
> Igdalov
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:18 PM
> To: Kenn Hussey; Nick Boldt
> Cc: MDT OCL mailing list
> Subject: [mdt-ocl.dev] Backwards compatibility for MDT OCL
>
> Hi Kenn and Nick,
>
> The MDT OCL team has decided to implement the new OCL standard (2.2) 
> and also to support backwards compatibility with the current 
> implementation of the OCL 2.0 standard. Since the new and the old OCL 
> standards are not compatible we have decided to create two initially 
> similar sets of plugins/features - MDT OCL 1.4.0 (for backwards 
> compatibility in Helios+
> releases) and MDT OCL 3.0.0 (the new implementation of OCL 2.2). We 
> think it would be convenient to make a CVS branch for 1.4.0, and thus, 
> to build 3.0.0 artefacts from HEAD and release 1.4.0 artefacts from the branch.
> Plugins for 1.4.0 and 3.0.0 are to be independent and must 
> successfully co-exist in Helios. Ideally, 1.4.0 and 3.0.0 plugins 
> should be in different components - so that the users have the option 
> not only to install both implementations but also to install only one of them.
> Kenn, is it ok for MDT OCL to split into two components?
> Nick, do you forsee any difficulties in releng (releasing 3.0.0 from 
> HEAD and 1.4.0 from branch)?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio Release Engineer :: Dash Athena http://nick.divbyzero.com