[soa-pmc] Re: Mangrove proposal

[Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Done. Also, forum creation request was done.

I believe we are now waiting for Mike's +1 on the updated draft  
proposal.

http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/

Anne Jacko
emo@xxxxxxxxxxx



On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

> +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