Re: [emf-dev] EMF IP Logs

[Dave Steinberg <davidms@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick,

Apologies, and I certainly didn't toss it aside intentionally. I've been finding out about a lot of things that I was previously ignorant of this week. Unfortunately, it seems your tool was one thing I remained ignorant of.

Having looked at it now, I guess it doesn't pick up iplog-flagged bugs or bugs with iplog-flagged attachments. I think we've been using that scheme through this release (in EMF Core, at least), as it was said to be the way forward with the Foundation's tool. That said, I don't suppose it would be at all difficult to add the keyword to all such bugs.

My main reservation with your tool is that it's including patches that aren't actually contributions (such as patches by me in Tools) and, like the Foundation's tool, it only reports patch file sizes, which are almost never an accurate reflection of the size of the contribution. Patches with small changes often contain more context than changes. And it's quite usual for us to not accept all the changes in a patch. My concern is that reporting inflated contribution sizes could get us into trouble from the legal folks ("why isn't there a CQ for this 100k patch?"). Interestingly, the Foundation's tool seems to suffer from the same issue. It's especially odd that we were previously told to report changes by lines of code, and now the tool does it by patch size.

In short, it seems to me like we should have the ability to manually exclude patches that are not contributions or were not accepted (the Foundation's tool does this) and to edit the size reported for ones that are (but not this).

Given that everyone who has spoken up (still waiting to hear from Net4j/Teneo) has already done a static log, that seems the best option for right now. For the future, I'm totally open to either automated solution, provided it does what we end up deciding we need.

Cheers,
Dave

--
Dave Steinberg
Rational Software - IBM Toronto Lab
mailto:davidms@xxxxxxxxxx


Nick Boldt ---05/29/2009 12:34:23 PM---So I guess we've abandoned the better-than-static-log,

From:	Nick Boldt <nickboldt@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	Eclipse Modelling Framework <emf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	05/29/2009 12:34 PM
Subject:	Re: [emf-dev] EMF IP Logs

---

So I guess we've abandoned the better-than-static-log, 
more-complete-than-Foundation-log version?

http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/project-info/ipquery.php

You have no idea how much work went into creating that. Shame it's been 
tossed aside like yesterday's IP log. :(

To keep this one current, see:

http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/project-info/ipquery.php#Note

N

Anthony Hunter wrote:
> EMF Transaction, EMF Validation, and EMF Query is 100% accurate in 
> eclipse-project-ip-log.csv . I am not looking at the automated IP Log 
> unless this is a Galileo requirement. We can revisit the automated IP 
> Log for Helios.
> 
> Cheers...
> Anthony
> --
> Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
> Software Development Manager: Eclipse Open Source Components
> IBM Rational Software: Aurora / GEF / GMF / Modeling Tools
> Phone: 613-270-4613
> 
> 
> Inactive hide details for Dave Steinberg---05/29/2009 11:35:42 AM---Hi 
> all, I've exchanged email with a number of people indiviDave 
> Steinberg---05/29/2009 11:35:42 AM---Hi all, I've exchanged email with a 
> number of people individually about IP Logs,
> 
> 
> From:		 
> Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> 
> To:		 
> emf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Date:		 
> 05/29/2009 11:35 AM
> 
> Subject:		 
> [emf-dev] EMF IP Logs
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've exchanged email with a number of people individually about IP Logs, 
> but I just wanted to touch base with the the whole list.
> 
> The automated IP Log for all of EMF is here: 
> _http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?projectid=modeling.emf_
> 
> To the best of my understanding, it seems that it still doesn't support 
> doing components separately, so one person would need to submit the 
> results for the whole project. I think that's a problem for us. I also 
> know that, for Core at least, it would take considerable Bugzilla 
> tweaking to get a more or less correct result. I know that at least 
> Core, Query, Transaction, Validation, and Teneo have done old-school 
> static logs manually already. So, I think we should just stick with that 
> approach for this release.
> 
> I've updated the log for Core in CVS 
> (modeling/emf/emf/eclipse-project-ip-log.csv). I've also folded all 
> those changes into the main log for EMF 
> (modeling/emf/eclipse-project-ip-log.csv). I can see that Query, 
> Transaction, and Validation are up to date in that combined log, too.
> 
> I'm happy either to submit our logs independently from our components, 
> or to submit a single log once everyone has included their 
> contributions. Could people please voice their preferences?
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> -- 
> Dave Steinberg
> Rational Software - IBM Toronto Lab_
> __mailto:davidms@xxxxxx.com________________________________________________
> emf-dev mailing list
> emf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/emf-dev
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> emf-dev mailing list
> emf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/emf-dev

-- 
Nick Boldt :: http://wiki.eclipse.org/User:Nickb
Release Engineer :: Eclipse Modeling & Dash Athena
_______________________________________________
emf-dev mailing list
emf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/emf-dev