Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[mdt-ocl.dev] Re: MDT OCL Project Plan
Hi

At present we are planning to deal with about 14 bugzillas.

I think we should be planning to deal with all bugzillas except perhaps 10 that we really intend to defer rather than WONTFIX.

    Regards

       Ed Willink


Kenn Hussey wrote:
Of course additional bugs can be included/added to the plan during the following months, but the closer to the release that happens, the less we can call that "planning". The important thing is to notify the project communities (developers, consumers/vendors, users) about what's being considered and to give them a rough idea of when to expect such things to be considered "done". ;)

Cheers,

Kenn

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Adolfo Sanchez Barbudo <adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I feel that I don't need to include any addition/comment, It sounds vey nice ;)

Anyway, I think that Ed's concern is important... I guess that we will be able to include more bugs in the plan during the following months, won't we ?

Cheers,
Adolfo.

El 23 de septiembre de 2009 15:06, Kenn Hussey <kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:

Alex,

Thanks for putting this together. Here are my observations:

- I would consider using just "Helios" as the version name rather than "3.0.0 and 1.4.0". The fact that the features/plug-in are versions using those numbers is described elsewhere in the plan.

- You should probably mention that a migration guide will be provided, to help clients migrate from 1.x to 3.0, somewhere in the Introduction.

- The "SDK", "runtime binary distribution", and "standalone binary distribution" deliverables should probably be made plural, to reinforce the fact that two of each will be provided (one for 1.4 and one for 3.0).

- It would be helpful to call out the specific service releases, if any, in which OCL is participating (e.g., Galileo SR1 and/or SR2).

- The availability of a migration guide should also be mentioned in the compatibility section.

- I don't see the need to prefix themes with "MDT OCL 3.0.0" or "MDT OCL 1.4.0" (especially since there is only one 1.4 bug) - the target milestone already indicates which version the bug applies to... and in cases where it doesn't (e.g. you set it to "Mx" or "RC"), you could perhaps use a prefix in the bug subject.

- I would recommend using "Compliance" instead of "OCL 2.1 standard adoption", in the interest of consistency with other subprojects and in reducing the number of themes for MDT as a whole.

- I would consider moving the lone bug in "UI addons" to the "Usability" theme.

- We probably ought to create separate enhancements to leverage those EMF features I'm working on, since the work may be non-trivial and may or may not happen. They could still probably be put in the "Release Currency" theme, though.


Cheers,

Kenn


2009/9/22 Alexander Igdalov <alexander.igdalov@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi All,
 
Please take a look at our project plan.
 
 
It is a united plan for both 1.4.0 and 3.0.0 versions. Kenn, thanks for this idea - the plan xml was probably designed for one version only but I managed to unite the plans though))
 
If you want to update the project plan text or add a new theme under the "Themes and Priorities" section - please write to me about it. This is because this requires modification to plan xml and since then it needs specific committer rights.
 
However, for exisiting themes bugs can be added/modified without special rights. For example, to add a new bug under the "OCL 2.1 standard adoption" theme you will need to perform the following modifications in bugzilla:
 
1. Set target milestone to 3.0.0
2. Add to whiteboard field: OCL 2.1
3. Add keyword: plan
4. Set helios flag to: +
 
Cheers,
- Alex.
 
P.S. Kenn, the links to adopt improvements like https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=255786 are a part of a more general bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290103 .
Please ping me if a more fine-grained structure is needed.




Back to the top