[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[stp-pmc] Re: Mangrove proposal

great, thanks for your votes guys!

Adrian.

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:18 AM, mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> +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
>> 
>