Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[modeling-pmc] Re: SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)

Right you are.  GMF's Xpand should be removed during this release cycle:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=202813

- Rich


On 11/8/07 4:10 PM, "Ed Merks" <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Rich,
> 
> I think there's an Xpand in GMF too, org.eclipse.gmf.xpand.  As I said at
> the ESE, not only do we have diversity, we have duplication.  We'd like to
> remove EMF's version of JET, but with resource constraints, that might not
> be possible this release either.  :-(   I assume removing the GMF version
> of Xpand will be easier.
> 
> I think what's important long term is that we have a clean set of
> alternatives in the M2T project, so personally I'd rather see only a
> compliant version
> 
> 
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265  (t/l 313)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                  
>              Richard Gronback
>              <richard.gronback
>              @borland.com>                                              To
>                                        Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA,
>              11/08/2007 03:25          Oldevik Jon
>              PM                        <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx>, PMC
>                                        members mailing list
>                                        <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                                                         cc
>                                        Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Olsen
>                                        Gøran K."
>                                        <Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx>,
>                                        <jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx>, Bezivin Jean
>                                        <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        Re: SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was:
>                                        M2T MTL)
>                  
>                  
>                  
>                  
>                  
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copying the PMC mailing list to keep this discussion open and transparent.
> 
> If there is doubt that what?s in CVS has been properly cleared by the IP
> process, it needs to be removed until it has been.
> 
> Now that I more carefully read the MOFScript description, I see what?s
> implemented was a proposal for the MOF to Text Transformation Language RFP.
> To me ?adding an implementation of the standard means? means we?ll have 1.
> JET in EMF  2. JET2  3. Xpand  4. MOFScript  and 5. Some variant of
> MOFScript that is MOF2Text compliant.  I?ve got no problem with variety,
> but this seems like a lot of M2T flavors to me.
> 
> FYI, SVN will work with PDE build for fetching, but you?ll need help:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/svn-pde-build/  We use it for commercial
> product builds, but note that SVN is not supported by the releng tools, nor
> will it tag during the build, afaik (unless it?s a new feature, or I missed
> it).
> 
> Best Regards,
> Rich
> 
> 
> On 11/8/07 11:01 AM, "Paul Elder" <pelder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
>       All:
> 
>       Here's a summary of our call. The plan:
> 
>       1) Jon to prepare and initial draft of Move Review "docuWare", and
>       send it to Paul for comment.
>       2) Present it to the PMC  for comment. (Hopefully, we can do by next
>       week.)
>       3) Put this to a vote of M2T committers.
>       4) Talk to the foundation about IP issues.
>       5) Schedule a Move Review (earliest possible is Dec 5).
> 
>       From what I can tell from the foundation, the Move Review docuWare
>       must include:
>       * What is MOFScript and future plans
>       * Reasons for the move
>       * Names of committers who are moving
>       * Move plan:
>         * Any CQs (IP reviews) required
>         * source code repository
>         * bugzilla
>         * newsgropus
>         * builds
>         * web pages/downloads
> 
>       MOFScript future directions
>       * MOFScript is NOT currently an implementation of the OMG MOF Model
>       to text standard
>       * Sintef is planning on adding an implementation of the OMG standard
>       - current estimates are that this would occur in the next 6 months or
>       so (but likely not in time for Ganymede).
> 
>       Finally, some IP and process issues were identified.
> 
>       IP Issues
>       * There may not have been a contribution questionaire for the
>       MOFScript code currently in CVS.
>       * Sintef is using a non-Eclipse.org SVN repository for primary work
>       and then does periodic commits to Eclipse CVS. Their use of bugzilla
>       is currently inconsistent - they frequently make changes in reponse
>       to GMT newsgroup posts.
>       **** All this suggests that a new contribution questionaire may be in
>       order ****
> 
>       Process
>       * Moving forward, MOFScript should:
>          * Use Bugzilla to track all changes/contributions
>          * Use an Eclipse repository as the primary code repository.
>          * Use the modeling build infrastructure. (It is unclear whether
>       Nick's modeling build will work with SVN. If not, a move to CVS may
>       be required.)
> 
>       Paul
> 
>       Paul Elder
>       IBM Rational Software
>       Tel: +1-613-599-3916
>       E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Oldevik Jon <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx> 2007-11-07 09:30 AM
> 
> 
>                                                                          To
> 
> 
>       Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> 
> 
>                                                                          cc
> 
> 
>       Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Olsen Gøran K."
>       <Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx>, jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx, Bezivin Jean
>       <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Gronback
>       <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>                                                                     Subject
> 
> 
>       SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Thursday @ 1600 CET is good. We'll be one the phone at that time
>       tomorrow.
> 
>       Cheers,
>       Jon
> 
>       ________________________________
> 
>       Fra: Paul Elder [mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx]
>       Sendt: on 07.11.2007 15:26
>       Til: Oldevik Jon
>       Kopi: Ed Merks; Olsen Gøran K.; jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx; Bezivin Jean;
>       Richard Gronback
>       Emne: Re: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
> 
> 
> 
>       Jon:
> 
>       How about Thursday @ 1600 CET, 1000 EDT:
> 
>       
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2007&month=11&d
> ay=8&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=187&p2=188
> 
> 
>       I have a conference call number that purported allows toll-free
>       dialing from Europe:
> 
>       Moderator:                                        Mr. Paul Elder
>       Conference ID:                                     1556241
>       Local Dial-in number:                              613-787-5018
>       Toll-free Dial-in number:                          1 866-842-3549
>       International Toll-free Dial-in number:            800-4444-7070
>       Norway:                                             00 800-4444-7070
>       Information:                                       1 866 224-5844
> 
>       However, other's using the number have found that they had to go
>       through an operator. If the conference ID is not recognized, try
>       again. After the third failure, you will be transfered to an operator
>       who will ask for the conference ID (1556241), sponsoring company
>       (IBM) and meeting organizer (Paul Elder). Alternatively, pressing *0
>       will bring you directly to an operator.
> 
>       Paul Elder
>       IBM Rational Software
>       Tel: +1-613-599-3916
>       E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Oldevik Jon <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>       2007-11-07 03:52 AM
> 
>       To
>       Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "Olsen Gøran K."
>       <Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx>
>       cc
>       Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Richard Gronback
>       <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bezivin Jean
>       <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx
>       Subject
>       SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Hi Paul,
>       We are in CET (GMT + 1), that is 6 hours before eastern time. A good
>       time for us between 14.00 - 16.00 CET, which would be 08.00 - 10.00
>       eastern time. Thursday or Friday this week should be good for a call,
>       or some time next week.
> 
>       Regards,
> 
>       Jon Oldevik
>       SINTEF ICT
>       Oslo, NORWAY
> 
> 
> 
>       ________________________________
> 
>       Fra: Paul Elder [mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx]
>       Sendt: ti 06.11.2007 20:21
>       Til: Olsen Gøran K.; Oldevik Jon
>       Kopi: Ed Merks; Richard Gronback; Bezivin Jean; jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx
>       Emne: Re: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
> 
> 
> 
>       Jon & Goran:
> 
>       First, I'm very interested in welcoming MOFScript to the M2T project.
>       I asked the EMO what the process is for the move; the details are
>       below. To summarize:
> 
>       * Create move review "docuware" explaining the rationale and a move
>       plan.
>       * Get Modeling PMC approval
>       * Schedule a Move Review with the EMO
>       * EMO will want to review committer paper work
>       * EMO may need a contribution questionaire for the code.
> 
>       Let's schedule a call to start working out the details. I'm in the
>       North American Eastern time zone (GMT - 5), and am typically
>       available between 0800 and 1600 Eastern. What time would work for
>       you?
> 
>       Paul Elder
>       IBM Rational Software
>       Tel: +1-613-599-3916
>       E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>       ----- Forwarded by Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM on 2007-11-06 01:33 PM -----
> 
> 
>       Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>       2007-11-06 12:27 PM
> 
>       To
>       Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
>       cc
>       Janet Campbell <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>       Subject
>       Re: Question: What's the component move process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Hi Paul (cc Janet),
> 
>       Given the circumstances, you will need a Move Review, and you will
>       need to submit a CQ for the code (unless Janet, cc'd above, says
>       otherwise). I believe the next date for a review call will probably
>       be the first Wednesday in December (Dec. 5) but I'm not sure about
>       that yet.
> 
>       Here's some general information about Move Reviews. Some of it
>       doesn't apply to your case (because you're not moving a project and
>       not moving between top-level projects), and some of it we have
>       already discussed in these emails. The key items for you are
>       reviewing committer paperwork and an IP review (CQ) for the code.
>       Please let me know if you have any questions--thanks.
>       ----------------------------
>       Information for Project Leads about Move Reviews
> 
>       For your Move Review, you'll need PMC approval for the move from the
>       "sending" PMC and the "receiving" PMC, and the review docuware. In
>       some cases you will also need IP clearance for the review--please be
>       sure to find out if you need to submit a Contribution Questionnaire
>       for moving the code.
> 
>       For a Move Review, the docuware describes the reasons for the move,
>       and includes the steps you will go through to facilitate the move
>       (aka your Move Plan). Please consider these items when writing your
>       Move Plan:
> 
>        1. Asking the Eclipse Legal department to review committer paperwork
>       to see if committers need new agreements
>        2. Web page updates (for both top-level projects and for the
>       (sub)project)
>        3. Bugzilla changes to reflect new top-level parent project
>        4. Newsgroup name change
>        5. Mailing list name change
> 
>       Here are some general comments about review docuware that might be
>       helpful:
> 
>       Many people underestimate the time and effort needed to create the
>       docuware, so please be sure to allow enough time for this task. The
>       "official" due date for the docuware is one week before the review
>       call (T - one week). However, the docuware needs to be reviewed by
>       the EMO before posting. If you wait until the due date to submit the
>       first draft and the EMO requests changes, then you'll probably miss
>       your deadline and your review will be postponed. We strongly suggest
>       this timeline for submitting docuware:
> 
>       T - two weeks: submit first draft via e-mail to EMO
> 
>       T - 10 days: submit final draft
> 
>       T - one week (due date): EMO posts final version on website before
>       announcing review call
> 
>       Please note that that we need both a vendor-neutral format file (PDF)
>       and the source format that you used to create it; we archive both
>       versions.
> 
>       Many projects overlook these items when they do their first draft:
> 
>       * page (slide) numbers * copyright notice * EPL notice * IP Log URL
> 
>       The docuware should also include the Bugzilla URL for the bug we use
>       for comments and voting. The EMO will open this bug when you submit
>       the first draft of the docuware and supply the URL for inclusion in
>       subsequent versions.
> 
>       Retrieved from "
>       https://foundation.eclipse.org/wiki/index.php/Review_Process <
>       https://foundation.eclipse.org/wiki/index.php/Review_Process> "
> 
>       This page has been accessed 256 times. This page was last modified
>       16:53, October 17, 2007.
> 
> 
>       Anne Jacko
>       emo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
>       On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Paul Elder wrote:
> 
> 
>       Anne:
> 
>       Answers:
> 
>       - Do you plan to move just code, or will committers be "moving" as
>       well?
>       PE> Code and committers
> 
> 
>       - Has a CQ been submitted for this code?
>       PE> Code in CVS, but I cannot find any CQs. Original CVS commits were
>       12 months ago. In fact, I suspect an IP review might be a good idea.
> 
> 
>       - Is the code moving permanently?
>       PE> Yes, it would be a permanent move.
> 
> 
>       Paul Elder
>       IBM Rational Software
>       Tel: +1-613-599-3916
>       E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
> 
>       2007-11-06 11:30 AM
> 
> 
> 
>       To
>       Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
>       cc
>       Subject
>       Re: Question: What's the component move process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Hi Paul,
> 
>       The process for moving code varies with the situation. Let me ask a
>       few questions to see what applies in this case:
> 
>       - Do you plan to move just code, or will committers be "moving" as
>       well?
> 
>       - Has a CQ been submitted for this code?
> 
>       - Is the code moving permanently?
> 
>       Thanks.
> 
>       Anne Jacko
>       emo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
>       On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Paul Elder wrote:
> 
> 
>       Anne:
> 
>       What is the process for moving a component from one project to
>       another. FYI, the component in question is MOFScript, currently in
>       the GMT project under Modeling. The suggested new home would be in
>       the M2T project (again, under Modeling).
> 
>       Thanks in advance,
> 
>       Paul
> 
>       Paul Elder
>       IBM Rational Software
>       Tel: +1-613-599-3916
>       E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>       ----- Forwarded by Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM on 2007-11-06 10:51 AM -----
> 
>       "Jean Bezivin" <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>       <mailto:Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>       Sent by: jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>       2007-11-05 09:11 AM
> 
> 
> 
>       To
>       Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
>       cc
>       "Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
>       <mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> >, Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
>       Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx> , "Oldevik
>       Jon" <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx> >
>       Subject
>       Re: M2T MTL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Dear Paul, Rich and Ed,
> 
>       I got Goran and Jon from Sintef from SINTEF on the phone.
> 
>       Yes they would be interested now in moving an updated MOFScript
>       version
>       from GMT to M2T.
> 
>       I put them in copy of this mail and let Paul discuss with them.
> 
>       Best regards,
> 
>       Jean
> 
>       On 11/1/07, Paul Elder <pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
> 
>       Rich & Jean:
> 
>       Yes, Compuware has abandoned MTL.
> 
>       And, yes, if the MOFScript group is interested in moving to M2T, they
>       would be welcomed.
> 
>       If its OK with everyone, I'll take MTL off the M2T page. If, at a
>       later date, MOFScript joins M2T, then it should probably join under
>       that name.
> 
>       Paul
> 
>       Paul Elder
>       IBM Rational Software
>       Tel: +1-613-599-3916
>       E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>       Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
>       <mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>  >
> 
>       2007-11-01 02:25 PM
> 
> 
> 
>       To
>       Jean Bezivin <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>       <mailto:Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>       cc
>       Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>       Subject
>       Re: M2T MTL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Thanks, Jean.
> 
>       This may be a good idea, but I'll leave it to Paul to comment on this
>       further.
> 
>       Best,
>       Rich
> 
> 
>       On 11/1/07 11:52 AM, "Jean Bezivin" < Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>       <mailto:Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> 
>> Rich,
>> 
>> When M2T graduated, I explicitly asked them if they would like to
>       join M2T
>> and quit GMT. At that time they preferred to stay in GMT to be able
>> to explore research alternatives to model to text transformations.
>> This was OK to me.
>> 
>> Now we may put the question again to them. They may have changed
>       their view.
>> The project is lead by SINTEF from Norway.
>> 
>> If you wish I may contact them about this possibility.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jean
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> With that, I see MOFScript on the GMT homepage that is also an
>>> implementation of this spec (although each is worded differently
>       in their
>>> description than the OMG spec itself).  Perhaps MOFScript can
>       graduate to
>>> M2T and fill this slot?  Or, should we just remove the MTL
>       reference from
>>> M2T?  Or, is there another explanation that can clear this up for
>       me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Richard C. Gronback
> Borland Software Corporation
> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 860 227 9215
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215



Back to the top