Ed,
I think it will make things more complex/long. Changing project lead
of GMF Tooling is already something that should have been done lots
of monthes ago, and that has always been delayed for several
reasons.
Then I am in favor of a faster approach: Anthony makes Michael
Golubev project lead (with both Anthony's +1 and mine, the vote is
OK), and when it is done, we'll probably think about removing Artem
committer status on GMF Tooling.
Does it sound "legally" good enough?
On 05/10/2011 19:55, Ed Merks wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
|
