FWIW, "Top Level Project" has a specific meaning in the EDP. Your
list looks like a bunch of bundles from stp.model (Intermediate
Model). Is this correct?
The EDP requires that we engage in a Restructuring review. It's a
relatively simple affair, requiring only a short description of what
needs to move and where. We can include it in the STP termination
documentation. i.e. we can combine the STP termination review with a
stp.model move review. Once we have all the answers, I'll finish up
the termination/move documentation and schedule the review.
Does moving to stp.model to eBPM make general sense? Does it fall
under the scope of eBPM? Does anybody else depend on this code?
What of stp.policy?
Wayne
On 01/12/2012 08:42 AM, Andrea Zoppello wrote:
Hi Wayne,
The SOA ebpm project still depends on the following in STP top
level projects:
- org.eclipse.stp.im
- org.eclipse.stp.im.edit
- org.eclipse.stp.im.editor
- org.eclipse.stp.im.in.bpmn
- org.eclipse.stp.im.resources
- org.eclipse.stp.im.runtime
- org.eclipse.stp.im.tests
- org.eclipse.stp.im.tool.in.bpmneditor
that are located at
"..svnroot/stp/org.eclipse.stp.intermediate-model/org.eclipse.stp.model/trunk/".
BTW i agree with you that it's time to terminate the STP project.
On the other side we have ebpm ( and the spagic stack ) deployed
and installed in a lot of projects so
we need to continue support on this code.
A migration to Mangrove project is planned, but even if we'll made
the migration of the code, we still need
to mantain the old code too for mantainance reason.
So my proposal, is to move this code in the SOA/ebpm repository
where the ebpm group can continue to mantain
and use it. I'm not sure if this required a CQs or some formal
steps, or if we can simply proceed to check in
the code in the ebpm repository.
This seems to be a reasonable solution for us. Let me know if this
ok for you.
Andrea
Il 11/01/2012 20:35, Wayne Beaton ha scritto:
AFAICT, there are two things stopping me from terminating STP:
stp.model and stp.policy. These subprojects were created as
components when we had such a notion. If they are to be moved,
then the code contained in these components can be moved to an
existing project. Or--since all "components" automatically
became projects when we changed the EDP--we can simply move
these "projects" under SOA and be done with it. What makes
sense?
FWIW, there were a handful (14) of commits against stp.model in
2011.
The termination documentation [1] indicates that all other
components/subprojects are to be terminated and archived.
I want to move forward with this. Would setting an arbitrary
deadline help?
What else I can do to move this forward?
Wayne
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP/Termination_Review
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
 
_______________________________________________
soa-pmc mailing list
soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-pmc
--
Andrea Zoppello
Spagic Architect
|
Respect the environment. Please don't print this
e-mail unless you really need to. |
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from any computer.
_______________________________________________
soa-pmc mailing list
soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
  |
