[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Newsgroup Home]
[News.eclipse.technology.packaging] Re: Modeling package
Title: Re: Modeling package
Makes sense to me, Ian.  Thanks for the clarification.  

I suggest we (finally) decide up what we’d like in a Modeling package on our next PMC call (11/20) and proceed from there.  It may be as simple as just what will be provided for Ganymede.

Thanks,
Rich


On 11/1/07 9:46 AM, in article fgclcf$nnm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rich,
IMO, the 'policies' for EPP are how the EPP project will make decisions on building the packages they are responsible for; specifically the four they do today.   If the modeling top level project, or for that matter anyone else, created their own package, you have the freedom to decide what you want in it.
I 'hope' that a number of groups/individuals will create their own packages in time for Ganymede and we will create a 'cool packages' page that contains all of the community packages.   We would link to this page from the download page.   Make sense?

"Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote in message news:C34DE38C.1EA92%richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We’ve been  discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested, I’m posting here  and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its proposal and  definition.

In accordance with the proposed policies (http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.packaging/msg00100.html),  it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping under the  “Models and Model Development” category of Europa/Ganymede (and their  dependencies).  This would be:

 

To comply  with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we’d need to exclude  JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools.  The most concerning aspect of this is the  loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling package would have no UML  diagramming.  How firm is this requirement?  

Note that we  may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff on December 14th  (e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand).

I suspect to keep with policy 3, which  requires keeping the packages as small as possible, we should not include SDK  features.  Does this present a problem to anyone?

Another point to  consider are those “modeling” features found outside of the Modeling project.   For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming feature.  Should we look to  include all end user modeling/diagramming features in this  package?

Thanks,
Rich