Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[emft-dev] Re: [emf-dev] Re: [modeling-pmc] Project plan


The component plans for CDO and Net4j look good.
Only the links in the header to the meta data are not particularly useful because this meta data does not show any information.



Ed Merks schrieb:

I've created plans for EMF and EMFT:
They're effectively just links to the component plans using links of this form:
I would imagine this could have been automated. 

You guys (EMF/EMFT component leads) might want to confirm that all looks good.  Note particularly Rich's comment about the ID used here:
<release projectid="modeling.emf" 
If you point at the component id (like I did with modeling.emf.emf) it will point at the right portal data but it won't render a nice title.

It would be good if MDT's plan included a link to the XSD plan.


Richard Gronback wrote:
Hi Kenn,

I think the roll-up you have is better than linking, honestly.  I think it
would be possible to merge several component plans automatically, though I
stuck with the simple approach first.  Of course, your project would have to
agree upon a certain structure and query style, which you've done.

But again, I'm waiting to see what happens to the portal to support
components -> projects in the future beyond going any further.  Of course,
I'm sure additional patches are always welcome ;)


On 11/10/08 9:24 AM, "Kenn Hussey" <Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Thanks, this will help us drill down into the "sub" plans. But I still see
value in seeing all the plan items at the parent project level, from a "bird's
eye" view. I was thinking it would be useful to include the component name for
each bug that appears in a plan; this way, in the rolled up plan (like the one
for MDT), it would be possible to tell which component each bug is from. What
do you think?


Kenn Hussey
Program Manager, Modeling and Design Solutions

Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. | 
82 Peter Street, Second Floor | Toronto, ON  M5V 2G5
Office: 416-593-1585 x9296 Mobile: 613-301-9105

-----Original Message-----
From: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Gronback
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:15 AM
To: PMC members mailing list
Cc: Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] Project plan


I've created a patch that will let us use a full plan url and specify a
component name:

Hopefully, Bjorn will be able to commit this shortly and thereby enable our
master-detail plan structure until such time components can be declared as
projects through the portal.

Note that components will need to use their project id in the plan.xml and
not some component namespace (e.g. modeling.emf and not modeling.emf.teneo).

And just to clarify one more thing regarding the upcoming Galileo release...
The Planning Council is the body that coordinates the simultaneous releases,
and is comprised of members from each PMC.  Therefore, please ask Ed and/or
myself for what you need to facilitate your project/component's
participation.  As each project lead is on our PMC, everyone should have


On 11/8/08 3:06 PM, "Cédric Brun" <cedric.brun@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Rich,

Just speaking about EMFT but that's probably the same issue for the
other projects, but the plan urls given in the portal are :

Though only the ecore tools appears on the link you provided.
Probably an issue or a misunderstanding about how those plans  should be
merged don't you think ?


Richard Gronback a écrit :

I created an initial roll-up Modeling project plan:

Perhaps we can just contribute this one plan link to the Galileo plan and
indicate on our plan which are train participants?

Some things I noticed from the list of individual project links:

- modeling.emf only talks about Teneo
- modeling.m2m only talks about ATL (no QVTO)
- modeling.m2t only talks about MTL (no Xpand or JET)
- modeling.tmf only talks about Xtext (no TCS)
- modeling.emft only talks about Ecore Tools
- modeling.gmt does not exist!

Please note that all projects are required to have a plan.xml to pass their
annual release/continuation review, not only release train projects.
Furthermore, if you're waiting on the portal to allow components to switch
to projects, it will be some 6+ months.  So, we'll need to manually roll-up
project components into a single plan (see the MDT plan for a nice example).


modeling-pmc mailing list

modeling-pmc mailing list

modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc mailing list

modeling-pmc mailing list

_______________________________________________ emf-dev mailing list emf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top