[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [modeling-pmc] Re: How to Mange Modeling Subprojects
|
Bjorn:
So, for example, if we start new components incubating in EMFT, then
move them later into Modeling/EMF, that's acceptable (even given the
extra churn involved in moving projects, builds, UM sites, RSS feeds,
etc.) ? Or would we need to create brand-new tech projects for each
and every new incubating project, let it grow for a year, exit
incubation via release review, and THEN move from
/technology/<whatever> into /modeling/emf/<whatever> ? Is EMFT going
to exist as a place to incubate EMF technologies? Or is it being
sunset after I move its remaining 9 projects into MDT, EMF, and M2T?
If we can start in EMFT that's not *too* painful; if we must start
fresh, that seems like extra pain just to allow the parallel IP
process. I'm guessing that starting as a tech project and having to
move might in fact be slower (and certainly more work for me!) than
simply not being able to use the parallel IP process. (Please correct
me if I'm way off here.)
Cheers,
Nick
On 2/3/07, Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ed,
You should note that only projects can take advantage of the new
Parallel IP process - we don't have a distinction for the Incubating
Component inside a project. So if you want these new entities to be able
to take advantage of the much faster Parallel IP process for approving
incoming contributions, they will need to be either their own Incubating
Project or a component of an existing Incubating Project.
EMF is not an Incubating Project.
FYI,
Bjorn
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
