While I’d like to delegate the work to individual component leads, I’m OK with waiting for a +1 from each of the contributing component/sub-project leads before resolving bugs at the MDT level (we can always assign the bugs to component leads to get their attention). So for MDT, I’d like to go for one set of bugs for MDT (Releng component is fine).
Cheers,
Kenn Hussey
Program Manager, Modeling and Design Solutions
<image.jpg><http://www.embarcadero.com/>
Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. | www.embarcadero.com <http://www.embarcadero.com> <http://www.embarcadero.com> <http://www.embarcadero.com/>
82 Peter Street, Second Floor | Toronto, ON M5V 2G5
Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Office: 416-593-1585 x9296 Mobile: 613-301-9105
From: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Gronback
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:55 PM
To: PMC members mailing list
Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] FW: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Where would youlike your Galileo bugs?
Thanks, Christian. I agree, that would not be a bad approach.
The hope regarding components is that the “I’m a project now, not a component” feature of the portal will be available in the next (OK, like 6) months, which means having them separate now may mean not having to create a bunch later. Plus, I suspect Kenn will want to delegate to each component the responsibility of maintaining these train bugs. I guess it’s best left up to the Project Lead to determine what’s best for their project.
Best,
Rich
On 10/30/08 3:49 PM, "Christian W. Damus" <cdamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, Rich,
If I were a PMC member, I would vote for project-level bugs (EMF, GMF, M2M, M2T, MDT, etc.) and implement a checklist of the components in each.
As components implement the requirement of a bug, they add their checkmarks. When all components are accounted for, the bug is resolved.
Nick has implemented this strategy in a number of cross-component releng bugs, and it has always worked well.
Cheers,
Christian
On 30-Oct-08, at 3:17 PM, Richard Gronback wrote:
Hello,
In case you’ve not followed the Planning Council discussion on this year’s train participation requirements, we’re going to track requirements using Bugzilla. The approach is to create a bug for each requirement, then clone each for each train participant with a dependency on the “master.”
So the question is, what level of granularity do we want in Modeling on these bugs? Keep in mind, it’s like 20 bugs for each participant you’ll get by signing up. If we go by our .sc file list last year in Ganymede, it means we’ll need:
EMF
EMF-CDO
EMF-Net4j
EMF-Query
EMF-Teneo
EMF-Transaction
EMF-Validation
EMFT-Compare
EMFT-EcoreTools
EMFT-Mint
EMFT-Search
GMF
M2M-ATL
M2M-QVTOML
M2T-JET
MDT-OCL
MDT-UML2
MDT-UML2Tools
MDT-XSD
I’m not sure if TMF is expecting to be on the train, so Sven/Frederic please let us know. Also, if any others are planning to join, please pre-announce your intent now (although technically you have until M4).
Thanks,
Rich
------ Forwarded Message
From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Eclipse Foundation Inc.
Reply-To: "eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:54:23 -0700
To: "eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Where would you like your Galileo bugs?
Galileo Leads,
I am creating all the cloned Galileo bugs as per our discussion at EclipseWorld. Before I do, I'd like to know where you want me to put the bugs for your project(s). Here is the table I have so far:
Project Classification Product Component
Buckminster Tools Buckminster internal-build
CDT Tools CDT cdt-releng
DLTK Technology DLTK Common
DSDP DD DSDP DD General
DSDP TM DSDP Target Management Core
DTP DataTools releng
ECF RT ECF ecf.core
Platform Eclipse Platform Releng
Equinox RT Equinox Framework
EMF Modeling EMF Releng
EMFT Modeling EMFT Releng
EPP Technology EPP installer
GEF Tools GEF releng
GMF Modeling GMF Releng
MDT Modeling MDT Releng
M2M Modeling M2M Releng
M2T Modeling M2T Releng
TMF Modeling TMF Releng
Mylyn Tools Mylyn Core
RAP Technology RAP Workbench
STP STP build.system
Subversive Technology Subversive Core
TPTP TPTP TPTP Release Engineering Build
WTP WebTools Web Tools General
Rich, Ed,
If you'd like the modeling sub-sub-projects to have their own set of cloned bugs, please let me know which sub-sub-projects and which bugzilla component to file them under - thanks.
- Bjorn
--
New Page 1 [end of message]
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
------ End of Forwarded Message
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
--
Christian W. Damus
Senior Software Developer, Zeligsoft Inc.
Component Lead, Eclipse MDT OCL and EMF-QTV
E-mail: cdamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
