[stp-pmc] Re: Mangrove proposal

[mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx]

+1


Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:59:18 
To: Wayne Beaton<wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Milinkovich<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STP PMC list<stp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Adrian Mos<adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx>; <soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Mangrove proposal

Done. Also, forum creation request was done.

I believe we are now waiting for Mike's +1 on the updated draft
proposal.

http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/

Anne Jacko
emo@xxxxxxxxxxx



On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

> +1
>
> Anne, can you change the first sentence to indicate that Mangrove
> will be created under the SOA TLP (now that it actually exists)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne
>
> Anne Jacko wrote:
>> Wayne (cc PMC, Mike, Adrian),
>>
>> I've uploaded the new Mangrove proposal. Please take a look --
>> thanks.
>>
>> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/
>>
>> Anne Jacko
>> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Adrian Mos wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Wayne,
>>>
>>> with some delay (holidays...), here's the updated version of the
>>> proposal that takes into account your suggestions as agreed to in
>>> my previous email.
>>> <mangrove-proper-proposal2.zip>
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your help.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Adrian.
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2009, at 8:11 PM, Adrian Mos wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Wayne,
>>>>
>>>> thanks a lot for the comments, see my replies inline:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm concerned that the scope is not explicit enough. If I'm
>>>>> reading the proposal correctly, the intent is to take the
>>>>> intermediate model that's currently part of STP and turn it into
>>>>> an separate project in its own right; in this context, the
>>>>> discussion of integrating the various "SOA editors, runtime and
>>>>> deployment tools" makes sense. However, that bit about the
>>>>> intermediate model itself is missing from the scope section.
>>>>
>>>> you are right, it is the current Intermediate Model component (in
>>>> Eclipse sense) that I propose to turn into a sub-project of its
>>>> own (with an extended set of responsibilities). I will make it
>>>> clearer in the scope that it's the IM.
>>>>
>>>>> Actually... the "description" section sounds like a better
>>>>> candidate for the scope. Perhaps you can just merge these two
>>>>> sections.
>>>>
>>>> OK I can merge them if you think it makes a clearer read.
>>>>
>>>>> The proposal talks about "proposed components". Are you using
>>>>> "component" in the Eclipse Development Process sense? i.e. do
>>>>> you intend to have different sets of commit rights for each
>>>>> component? Or are these just functional areas?
>>>>
>>>> Just functional areas, it's true that the word component is
>>>> highly overloaded. So it's really just "blocks" of stuff. I can
>>>> call the section Functional Areas, to make the separation very
>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>> I'll make the changes in the next couple of days or so and send
>>>> the improved version back to you.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the help.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Adrian.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
> http://www.eclipse.org
>
> I'm going to EclipseCon!
> http://www.eclipsecon.org
>