Hi Wayne
I think the hard bit is the downloads page where the existing id
hierarchy e.g. modeling.mdt.ocl drives some obscure but very helpful
PHP scripts.
As soon as new (PMI) Downloads page infrastructure is available I
think the move is easy.
To match the performance of the existing PHP scripts I would like to
see.
- automatic creation of the downloads page (e.g.
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/downloads/?project=ocl)
from the drops location (e.g.
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/download.php?file=/modeling/mdt/ocl/downloads/drops...)
- partitioning of S/R/I/M/N builds
- folding to hide details
- customization of release contents (updates/SDK/examples/...)
- archive downloads with irregular names e.g. $oldrels in
http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/mmt.git/tree/downloads/extras-qvto.php
- custom page content e.g. footnotes in
http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/mmt.git/tree/downloads/extras-qvto.php
- release hiding e.g.
http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/mmt.git/tree/downloads/hidden.txt
- general appearance much closer to (e.g.
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/downloads/?project=ocl than
http://www.eclipse.org/emf/compare/downloads/
i.e. smaller fonts, more details on lines, no meaningless (to me)
icons, primary release first, named/sized/md5 content)
It would be nice to repair the pre-Buckminster functionality
- changes in this build
- tests results and logs
Perhaps the PMI could support something like
http://www.eclipse.org/cdo/downloads/ introducing distinct
Releases/Integration/Nightly tabs to make the page less busy.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 25/06/2013 08:42, Ed Merks wrote:
Michael,
As part of the release reviews, Wayne was asking for these kinds
restructuring details. I think the bugzilla changes can be
initiated now by opening a bugzilla for the webmaster to make the
renaming changes. No doubt Wayne will respond with details.
Regards,
Ed
On 25/06/2013 9:39 AM, Michael
Jastram wrote:
Hi Ed,
We've the same situation as Hendrik, everything is independent
except Bugzilla (MDT.RMF). So I have the same question as
Hendrik:
Is there anything we are required to do to
make the restructuring happen?
Thanks,
- Michael
On 25.06.2013 09:18, Ed Merks wrote:
Henrik,
I believe it makes sense to remove the MDT qualification from
the bugzilla components. I.e., this list would show all the
remaining projects as products with their simple names:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?classification=Modeling
Regards,
Ed
On 25/06/2013 9:12 AM, Henrik
Rentz-Reichert wrote:
Hi Wayne, Ed,
I have been following this restructuring project from the
beginning.
But I'm not quite sure to which extent our eTrice project
is affected.
We have an independent website [1].
We have an independent download site [2].
We have an independent news group [3].
We have an independent developer mailing list [4].
It's only that our bugzilla product is MDT.ETrice [5].
Is there anything we are required to do to make the
restructuring happen?
Regards,
Henrik
[1] http://eclipse.org/etrice/
[2] http://eclipse.org/etrice/download.php
[3] http://www.eclipse.org/forums/eclipse.etrice
[4] etrice-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
[5] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=MDT.Etrice
Am 25.06.2013 08:31, schrieb Ed
Merks:
Wayne,
Comments below.
On 25/06/2013 5:51 AM, Wayne
Beaton wrote:
Hi Modeling PMC.
As you recall you initiated a Restructuring Review [1]
late last year that flattens the Modeling top-level
project by removing the mid-level "container" projects
and terminated a large number of inactive projects. I've
captured the activity around this restructuring in Bug
393862 [2].
Immediately following the review, I enumerated the
required steps and initiated the termination and
archival of twenty projects. In the months that
followed, I have enumerated the required steps and
initiated some of the moves as outlined in the the
review document provided by the PMC.
As part of the Kepler reviews, I tried to get the Kepler
participants to engage in the moves initiated by the
PMC. There has been some push-back, but many of the
projects have engaged in the process. Many, however,
have not.
I see.
I intend to remain very flexible in terms of the timing
and the natures of the moves. There are some corner
cases, but most projects don't need to move their
downloads and source repositories. I am in favour, for
example, of phased migration of download sites for
projects that want to do that sort of thing.
Yes, some of these things are painful to move, affecting
scripts and such.
I've been encouraging projects that don't
have their own products in Bugzilla to request them.
Yes, bugzilla in particular is used directly by the
community and needs to be more sensibly organized.
For the most part, a lot of these "moves"
are little more than changes in the project's id (e.g.
"modeling.emf.cdo" becomes "modeling.cdo"). Still, even
with just an id change, there can be unanticipated side
effects that we need to be sensitive to.
Yes, even those are things use within scripts and within
query links...
Many of the projects already have independent websites,
but some are blocked waiting for the Modeling website
infrastructure to be moved to Git/upgraded.
Yes, that's totally my fault. Reorganizing the whole
website is (will be) very time consuming...
Rather than invest significant energy in
upgrading the Modeling website infrastructure, I
recommend that projects be encouraged to either create
their own independent websites, or leverage the PMI.
Yes, for the most part, I do expect projects to look after
themselves, with the overall modeling website
infrastructure being used as a front end for navigating
and understand the overall organization.
We can set up as many redirects as possible
to make this happen. Reception of the PMI has been
generally good and I am very interested in extending it
to cover functionality that the modeling website
infrastructure supports. I need input to make that
happen.
Even with specialized,carefully designed websites, it
would still be nice to have the kind of uniformity
provided by the PMI....
For those projects that have provided move information,
the Webmaster has asked that we present the moves in
batches; apparently, there's a bit of grove to moving
projects and it's easier to do them this way. There are
a few projects that are ready and waiting. I intend to
pull the trigger sometime next week (following the
Kepler release).
While I really do intend to be flexible with regard to
implementing this restructuring, it makes no sense to
leave it open-ended.
No, that's mostly my fault. I've not been setting a good
example...
Some projects just don't care about the move
and have done nothing to assist with the process. At
this point, I feel some reflection is required.
Yes, that true.
Is moving everything in one big review was just too
ambitious?
Perhaps, but in the end, everything needs to be done and
it requires a lot of work, and for many of us, it's hard
to make that the top priority with so many things calling
for our attention...
How long is too long?
I suppose you decide that in the end.
Is it time to back out of the review and maybe attempt
to do this in smaller pieces?
Certainly we need to make incremental steps.
Do we really want/need to remove all of the container
projects?
Yes, they're a point of confusion, and the need for
controlling the committers on them, when they don't host
any source code has proven to be a pita...
What are you going to do about the website?
I think I've mentioned to you before that one significant
concern I have is migrating this stuff to git and then
ending up with all the current mess in the history such
that cloning the old big miss will forever be a headache.
You mentioned we could rewrite the history when we're
done.
If this restructuring is to continue, it needs to be
driven by the PMC. My role has to change to one of
providing support.
Perhaps you and I could schedule a call to discuss some of
the initial details and we could follow that with a call
of the PMC and any interested project leads to discuss and
overall strategy. Certainly I have more time with Kepler
out and the next release far in the future to take steps
now to get the ball rolling.
Thanks for your flexibility, assistance, and patience!
Thanks,
Wayne
[1]
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Modeling/project_termination_review_2012
[2]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=393682
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6438 - Release Date:
06/24/13
|
