| Hi Miles,
I think this just means that those projects weren't interesting for the ZeligSoft survey. Which doesn't necessarily mean that nobody within the whole working group is interested in AMP ;-)
Sven On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:27 PM, Miles Parker wrote:
Thanks Ken,
I think I have a sense of the scope of this now, as part of the much needed and appreciated effort to have a coherent set of core tools for modeling. What I'm wondering now is what implications this might have for the Modeling Project per se, for example projects that show up in Red on the evaluation sheets, such as B3, MWE and.. AMP. Is there some intention / has there been discussion about reorganization of the actual Eclipse project structure?
cheers,
Miles
On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Kenn Hussey wrote: Miles,
Cheers,
Kenn
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Miles Parker <milesparker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I hate to admit to missing something that must have been blindingly obvious to everyone else, :) but there seems to be some kind of working group out there that is involved in planning for future iterations of the modeling platform. I've only been able to locate a ZeligSoft report on google with recommendations, etc.. I'd like to try to keep AMP aligned or at least relevant to where things are headed. Could someone point me to docs, mailing list etc..?
cheers,
Miles
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
|
