[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[modeling-pmc] Re: SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
|
Right you are. GMF's Xpand should be removed during this release cycle:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=202813
- Rich
On 11/8/07 4:10 PM, "Ed Merks" <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rich,
>
> I think there's an Xpand in GMF too, org.eclipse.gmf.xpand. As I said at
> the ESE, not only do we have diversity, we have duplication. We'd like to
> remove EMF's version of JET, but with resource constraints, that might not
> be possible this release either. :-( I assume removing the GMF version
> of Xpand will be easier.
>
> I think what's important long term is that we have a clean set of
> alternatives in the M2T project, so personally I'd rather see only a
> compliant version
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Gronback
> <richard.gronback
> @borland.com> To
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA,
> 11/08/2007 03:25 Oldevik Jon
> PM <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx>, PMC
> members mailing list
> <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Olsen
> Gøran K."
> <Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx>, Bezivin Jean
> <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject
> Re: SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was:
> M2T MTL)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copying the PMC mailing list to keep this discussion open and transparent.
>
> If there is doubt that what?s in CVS has been properly cleared by the IP
> process, it needs to be removed until it has been.
>
> Now that I more carefully read the MOFScript description, I see what?s
> implemented was a proposal for the MOF to Text Transformation Language RFP.
> To me ?adding an implementation of the standard means? means we?ll have 1.
> JET in EMF 2. JET2 3. Xpand 4. MOFScript and 5. Some variant of
> MOFScript that is MOF2Text compliant. I?ve got no problem with variety,
> but this seems like a lot of M2T flavors to me.
>
> FYI, SVN will work with PDE build for fetching, but you?ll need help:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/svn-pde-build/ We use it for commercial
> product builds, but note that SVN is not supported by the releng tools, nor
> will it tag during the build, afaik (unless it?s a new feature, or I missed
> it).
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
>
> On 11/8/07 11:01 AM, "Paul Elder" <pelder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> All:
>
> Here's a summary of our call. The plan:
>
> 1) Jon to prepare and initial draft of Move Review "docuWare", and
> send it to Paul for comment.
> 2) Present it to the PMC for comment. (Hopefully, we can do by next
> week.)
> 3) Put this to a vote of M2T committers.
> 4) Talk to the foundation about IP issues.
> 5) Schedule a Move Review (earliest possible is Dec 5).
>
> From what I can tell from the foundation, the Move Review docuWare
> must include:
> * What is MOFScript and future plans
> * Reasons for the move
> * Names of committers who are moving
> * Move plan:
> * Any CQs (IP reviews) required
> * source code repository
> * bugzilla
> * newsgropus
> * builds
> * web pages/downloads
>
> MOFScript future directions
> * MOFScript is NOT currently an implementation of the OMG MOF Model
> to text standard
> * Sintef is planning on adding an implementation of the OMG standard
> - current estimates are that this would occur in the next 6 months or
> so (but likely not in time for Ganymede).
>
> Finally, some IP and process issues were identified.
>
> IP Issues
> * There may not have been a contribution questionaire for the
> MOFScript code currently in CVS.
> * Sintef is using a non-Eclipse.org SVN repository for primary work
> and then does periodic commits to Eclipse CVS. Their use of bugzilla
> is currently inconsistent - they frequently make changes in reponse
> to GMT newsgroup posts.
> **** All this suggests that a new contribution questionaire may be in
> order ****
>
> Process
> * Moving forward, MOFScript should:
> * Use Bugzilla to track all changes/contributions
> * Use an Eclipse repository as the primary code repository.
> * Use the modeling build infrastructure. (It is unclear whether
> Nick's modeling build will work with SVN. If not, a move to CVS may
> be required.)
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Elder
> IBM Rational Software
> Tel: +1-613-599-3916
> E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Oldevik Jon <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx> 2007-11-07 09:30 AM
>
>
> To
>
>
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
>
>
> cc
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Olsen Gøran K."
> <Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx>, jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx, Bezivin Jean
> <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Gronback
> <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Subject
>
>
> SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
>
>
>
>
>
> Thursday @ 1600 CET is good. We'll be one the phone at that time
> tomorrow.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: Paul Elder [mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sendt: on 07.11.2007 15:26
> Til: Oldevik Jon
> Kopi: Ed Merks; Olsen Gøran K.; jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx; Bezivin Jean;
> Richard Gronback
> Emne: Re: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
>
>
>
> Jon:
>
> How about Thursday @ 1600 CET, 1000 EDT:
>
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2007&month=11&d
> ay=8&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=187&p2=188
>
>
> I have a conference call number that purported allows toll-free
> dialing from Europe:
>
> Moderator: Mr. Paul Elder
> Conference ID: 1556241
> Local Dial-in number: 613-787-5018
> Toll-free Dial-in number: 1 866-842-3549
> International Toll-free Dial-in number: 800-4444-7070
> Norway: 00 800-4444-7070
> Information: 1 866 224-5844
>
> However, other's using the number have found that they had to go
> through an operator. If the conference ID is not recognized, try
> again. After the third failure, you will be transfered to an operator
> who will ask for the conference ID (1556241), sponsoring company
> (IBM) and meeting organizer (Paul Elder). Alternatively, pressing *0
> will bring you directly to an operator.
>
> Paul Elder
> IBM Rational Software
> Tel: +1-613-599-3916
> E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> Oldevik Jon <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 2007-11-07 03:52 AM
>
> To
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "Olsen Gøran K."
> <Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Richard Gronback
> <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bezivin Jean
> <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject
> SV: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
> We are in CET (GMT + 1), that is 6 hours before eastern time. A good
> time for us between 14.00 - 16.00 CET, which would be 08.00 - 10.00
> eastern time. Thursday or Friday this week should be good for a call,
> or some time next week.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Oldevik
> SINTEF ICT
> Oslo, NORWAY
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: Paul Elder [mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sendt: ti 06.11.2007 20:21
> Til: Olsen Gøran K.; Oldevik Jon
> Kopi: Ed Merks; Richard Gronback; Bezivin Jean; jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx
> Emne: Re: MOFScript move to M2T (was: M2T MTL)
>
>
>
> Jon & Goran:
>
> First, I'm very interested in welcoming MOFScript to the M2T project.
> I asked the EMO what the process is for the move; the details are
> below. To summarize:
>
> * Create move review "docuware" explaining the rationale and a move
> plan.
> * Get Modeling PMC approval
> * Schedule a Move Review with the EMO
> * EMO will want to review committer paper work
> * EMO may need a contribution questionaire for the code.
>
> Let's schedule a call to start working out the details. I'm in the
> North American Eastern time zone (GMT - 5), and am typically
> available between 0800 and 1600 Eastern. What time would work for
> you?
>
> Paul Elder
> IBM Rational Software
> Tel: +1-613-599-3916
> E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM on 2007-11-06 01:33 PM -----
>
>
> Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 2007-11-06 12:27 PM
>
> To
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> cc
> Janet Campbell <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject
> Re: Question: What's the component move process?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Paul (cc Janet),
>
> Given the circumstances, you will need a Move Review, and you will
> need to submit a CQ for the code (unless Janet, cc'd above, says
> otherwise). I believe the next date for a review call will probably
> be the first Wednesday in December (Dec. 5) but I'm not sure about
> that yet.
>
> Here's some general information about Move Reviews. Some of it
> doesn't apply to your case (because you're not moving a project and
> not moving between top-level projects), and some of it we have
> already discussed in these emails. The key items for you are
> reviewing committer paperwork and an IP review (CQ) for the code.
> Please let me know if you have any questions--thanks.
> ----------------------------
> Information for Project Leads about Move Reviews
>
> For your Move Review, you'll need PMC approval for the move from the
> "sending" PMC and the "receiving" PMC, and the review docuware. In
> some cases you will also need IP clearance for the review--please be
> sure to find out if you need to submit a Contribution Questionnaire
> for moving the code.
>
> For a Move Review, the docuware describes the reasons for the move,
> and includes the steps you will go through to facilitate the move
> (aka your Move Plan). Please consider these items when writing your
> Move Plan:
>
> 1. Asking the Eclipse Legal department to review committer paperwork
> to see if committers need new agreements
> 2. Web page updates (for both top-level projects and for the
> (sub)project)
> 3. Bugzilla changes to reflect new top-level parent project
> 4. Newsgroup name change
> 5. Mailing list name change
>
> Here are some general comments about review docuware that might be
> helpful:
>
> Many people underestimate the time and effort needed to create the
> docuware, so please be sure to allow enough time for this task. The
> "official" due date for the docuware is one week before the review
> call (T - one week). However, the docuware needs to be reviewed by
> the EMO before posting. If you wait until the due date to submit the
> first draft and the EMO requests changes, then you'll probably miss
> your deadline and your review will be postponed. We strongly suggest
> this timeline for submitting docuware:
>
> T - two weeks: submit first draft via e-mail to EMO
>
> T - 10 days: submit final draft
>
> T - one week (due date): EMO posts final version on website before
> announcing review call
>
> Please note that that we need both a vendor-neutral format file (PDF)
> and the source format that you used to create it; we archive both
> versions.
>
> Many projects overlook these items when they do their first draft:
>
> * page (slide) numbers * copyright notice * EPL notice * IP Log URL
>
> The docuware should also include the Bugzilla URL for the bug we use
> for comments and voting. The EMO will open this bug when you submit
> the first draft of the docuware and supply the URL for inclusion in
> subsequent versions.
>
> Retrieved from "
> https://foundation.eclipse.org/wiki/index.php/Review_Process <
> https://foundation.eclipse.org/wiki/index.php/Review_Process> "
>
> This page has been accessed 256 times. This page was last modified
> 16:53, October 17, 2007.
>
>
> Anne Jacko
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Paul Elder wrote:
>
>
> Anne:
>
> Answers:
>
> - Do you plan to move just code, or will committers be "moving" as
> well?
> PE> Code and committers
>
>
> - Has a CQ been submitted for this code?
> PE> Code in CVS, but I cannot find any CQs. Original CVS commits were
> 12 months ago. In fact, I suspect an IP review might be a good idea.
>
>
> - Is the code moving permanently?
> PE> Yes, it would be a permanent move.
>
>
> Paul Elder
> IBM Rational Software
> Tel: +1-613-599-3916
> E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
>
> 2007-11-06 11:30 AM
>
>
>
> To
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Question: What's the component move process?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> The process for moving code varies with the situation. Let me ask a
> few questions to see what applies in this case:
>
> - Do you plan to move just code, or will committers be "moving" as
> well?
>
> - Has a CQ been submitted for this code?
>
> - Is the code moving permanently?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Anne Jacko
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Paul Elder wrote:
>
>
> Anne:
>
> What is the process for moving a component from one project to
> another. FYI, the component in question is MOFScript, currently in
> the GMT project under Modeling. The suggested new home would be in
> the M2T project (again, under Modeling).
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Elder
> IBM Rational Software
> Tel: +1-613-599-3916
> E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM on 2007-11-06 10:51 AM -----
>
> "Jean Bezivin" <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> Sent by: jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 2007-11-05 09:11 AM
>
>
>
> To
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> cc
> "Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> >, Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
> Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Goran.K.Olsen@xxxxxxxxx> , "Oldevik
> Jon" <Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jon.Oldevik@xxxxxxxxx> >
> Subject
> Re: M2T MTL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Paul, Rich and Ed,
>
> I got Goran and Jon from Sintef from SINTEF on the phone.
>
> Yes they would be interested now in moving an updated MOFScript
> version
> from GMT to M2T.
>
> I put them in copy of this mail and let Paul discuss with them.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean
>
> On 11/1/07, Paul Elder <pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>
> Rich & Jean:
>
> Yes, Compuware has abandoned MTL.
>
> And, yes, if the MOFScript group is interested in moving to M2T, they
> would be welcomed.
>
> If its OK with everyone, I'll take MTL off the M2T page. If, at a
> later date, MOFScript joins M2T, then it should probably join under
> that name.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Elder
> IBM Rational Software
> Tel: +1-613-599-3916
> E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
>
> 2007-11-01 02:25 PM
>
>
>
> To
> Jean Bezivin <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> cc
> Paul Elder/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> Subject
> Re: M2T MTL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Jean.
>
> This may be a good idea, but I'll leave it to Paul to comment on this
> further.
>
> Best,
> Rich
>
>
> On 11/1/07 11:52 AM, "Jean Bezivin" < Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>
>> Rich,
>>
>> When M2T graduated, I explicitly asked them if they would like to
> join M2T
>> and quit GMT. At that time they preferred to stay in GMT to be able
>> to explore research alternatives to model to text transformations.
>> This was OK to me.
>>
>> Now we may put the question again to them. They may have changed
> their view.
>> The project is lead by SINTEF from Norway.
>>
>> If you wish I may contact them about this possibility.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> With that, I see MOFScript on the GMT homepage that is also an
>>> implementation of this spec (although each is worded differently
> in their
>>> description than the OMG spec itself). Perhaps MOFScript can
> graduate to
>>> M2T and fill this slot? Or, should we just remove the MTL
> reference from
>>> M2T? Or, is there another explanation that can clear this up for
> me?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard C. Gronback
> Borland Software Corporation
> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 860 227 9215
>
>
>
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
