[soa-pmc] Re: Mangrove proposal

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Anne, can you change the first sentence to indicate that Mangrove will 
be created under the SOA TLP (now that it actually exists)?

Thanks,

Wayne

Anne Jacko wrote:
> Wayne (cc PMC, Mike, Adrian),
>
> I've uploaded the new Mangrove proposal. Please take a look -- thanks.
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/
>
> Anne Jacko
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Adrian Mos wrote:
>
> > Hi Wayne,
> >
> > with some delay (holidays...), here's the updated version of the 
> > proposal that takes into account your suggestions as agreed to in my 
> > previous email.
> > <mangrove-proper-proposal2.zip>
> >
> > Thanks again for your help.
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian.
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2009, at 8:11 PM, Adrian Mos wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Wayne,
> > >
> > > thanks a lot for the comments, see my replies inline:
> > >
> > > > I'm concerned that the scope is not explicit enough. If I'm reading 
> > > > the proposal correctly, the intent is to take the intermediate 
> > > > model that's currently part of STP and turn it into an separate 
> > > > project in its own right; in this context, the discussion of 
> > > > integrating the various "SOA editors, runtime and deployment tools" 
> > > > makes sense. However, that bit about the intermediate model itself 
> > > > is missing from the scope section.
> > >
> > > you are right, it is the current Intermediate Model component (in 
> > > Eclipse sense) that I propose to turn into a sub-project of its own 
> > > (with an extended set of responsibilities). I will make it clearer 
> > > in the scope that it's the IM.
> > >
> > > > Actually... the "description" section sounds like a better 
> > > > candidate for the scope. Perhaps you can just merge these two 
> > > > sections.
> > >
> > > OK I can merge them if you think it makes a clearer read.
> > >
> > > > The proposal talks about "proposed components". Are you using 
> > > > "component" in the Eclipse Development Process sense? i.e. do you 
> > > > intend to have different sets of commit rights for each component? 
> > > > Or are these just functional areas?
> > >
> > > Just functional areas, it's true that the word component is highly 
> > > overloaded. So it's really just "blocks" of stuff. I can call the 
> > > section Functional Areas, to make the separation very clear.
> > >
> > > I'll make the changes in the next couple of days or so and send the 
> > > improved version back to you.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the help.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Adrian.

--
Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
http://www.eclipse.org

I'm going to EclipseCon!
http://www.eclipsecon.org