Anthony,
Could the committers have an election? Perhaps anyone who doesn't
vote can be decommiterized...
On 05/10/2011 10:04 AM, Anthony Hunter wrote:
Hi Team,
I have not heard from Artem that
he
wants to lead GMF Tooling anymore nor have I heard from anyone
speaking
on his behalf.
Michael Golubev will be the new
GMF
Tooling project lead. I will work with the modeling PMC and the
EMO to
make the change.
Cheers...
Anthony
From:
Anthony
Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
To:
"GMF Project developer
discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
09/13/2011 09:35 AM
Subject:
[gmf-dev] GMF-Tooling
project lead
Sent by:
gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Team,
"Anthony, could you please approve
upgrading the
version of GMF-T to 3.0 for the Juno release? "
Well, I suppose the project lead would approve first. I am
thinking Artem
is not around again. We are still waiting for his approval for
the release
review. I am thinking it may be in the best interest of the
project for
Artem to step down as project lead and we make Michael Golubev
the project
lead. To be fair, we need to give the community a bit of time to
reply
back any concerns.
Michael, is it great that you now have a team of three of GMF
Tooling.
I have no opinion either way if GMF Tooling is 3.0 in Juno. I
would proceed
with the project plan and allow the community to comment.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Michael
Golubev <golubev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "GMF
Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 09/13/2011
08:06 AM
Subject: [gmf-dev]
GMF-Tooling
in Juno -- can we plan for 3.0 (major)
release this year
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
While we are waiting for a release review for GMF-T 2.4, I would
invite
everyone to put efforts into the planning for next release.
I am glad to confirm that for this year we have got a
sponsorship from
Avaloq Evolution AG, which is willing to support team of 3
developers working
specifically on GMF-Tooling.
I am creating the draft proposal of the project plan now, will
commit it
shortly and post the main proposed topics here for discussion.
However, it is already clear for me that in order to deliver the
new features
we need Juno release to be a major one, thus 3.0 instead of 2.x.
The reason is, we will have to change models significantly, and
we will
not be able to provide automatic backward compatibility with the
models
created for 2.4.x
(we will of course follow the transition procedure from the past
of GMF-T
and will develop 'Migrate Model' actions to support migration of
existing
models).
Anthony, could you please approve upgrading the version of GMF-T
to 3.0
for the Juno release?
Also I am not sure how we can add into the Bugzilla the new set
of milestones
(no matter whether it is 3.0 M2, M3... or 2.5 M2, M3...).
If someone know how to do that please advice me, it would help
with pushing
the project plan proposal into Bugzilla.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael "Borlander" Golubev
Eclipse Committer (GMF, UML2Tools)
at Montages Think Tank, Prague, Czech Republic
Montages AG
Stampfenbachstr. 48, CH-8006 Zürich
tel: +41 44 260 75 57
mob: +420 602 483 463
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
|
