RE: [modeling-pmc] Transition Plan for MDT OCL andEMF"QTV" Components?

["Ed Willink" <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Freddy

Sorry for the long email; I think it's important that the new MDT-OCL
has a clear dynamic.

> Right, I have forgotten your name. So, I updated the proposed 
> committers 
> list :-) .
> Welcome aboard ;-)

Thanks for clarifying that.

--------------------------
For the record, I consider the long term project goal of MDT-OCL as:

Provide a robust extensible implementation of the OMG OCL specification(s) that
is as compliant with the specification(s) as reasonably possible and is
easy to use in conjunction with other Eclipse Modeling projects.

Deviation from the OMG specification should only occur when the
specification appears to be at fault and after a suggested resolution
has been submitted as an OMG issue that has a reasonable prospect of adoption.

Future MDT-OCL work on the current code base can bug-fix, improve extensibility
and support further OMG specifications. 

Future MDT-OCL work beyond the current code base might support missing
functionalities such as editors, compilers, optimisers, debuggers. 

Future work should only support private/proprietary 'OCL' languages
by providing enhanced APIs for extensibility.  

-------------------------
Has anyone considered the new dynamics?

Formerly there was just Christian, who had a very deep knowledge of
OCL and a very strong imposition of API compatibility, so if Christian
didn't like something it didn't happen. This was mostly good since he
was receptive to good improvements.

MDT-OCL 1.x has maintained a high degree of stability. But with the
hints of an OCL 2.1 there has been discussion in
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=237438
of what might be done if MDT-OCL moved to 2.x and so could break
some embarrassing APIs.

I'm not sure that the OCL code is large enough for 5 active committers 
to be redefining APIs all at once.

If some of the proposed committers are just volunteering to help
maintain an important project, it might be better if they stepped
down and made contributions to be assessed by a smaller number of
committers.

I recognise some of the proposed committers as having made significant
contributions to other projects. I worry that they may lack time
to commit actively.
 
I do not recognise others and so worry about their experience.

It may be helpful to have an MDT-OCL-Incubation (OCL Tools ?) sub-project in
which new developments are pioneered without impacting on the integrity
and dependencies of the MDT-OCL core. 

-----------------------------
With too many proposed committers we should perhaps each submit
a short application indicating how we see the project proceeding,
how we wish to contribute individually, and how much time we are
able to devote to the project.

The PMC may then make a more informed decision as to how to
re-establish the sub-project(s).

	Regards

		Ed Willink