Re: [tools-pmc] VE incubator - FOCUS

["Nick Boldt" <codeslave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

MDT is an "incubating project" which has gone through its 1.0 release,
including components which are numbered > 1.0 and < 1.0.

This includes UML2, an ex-con of Tools, and XSD, an ex-con of both
Technology and Tools. Both these "projects" were down-graded to
"component" so that the MDT "project" could be born to include them
and allow for // IP.

Last year's MDT 1.0 release included:
EODM 0.9
OCL 1.1
UML2 2.1
UML2 Tools 0.7
XSD 2.3

This year's MDT 1.1 will include:
EODM 1.0
OCL 1.2
UML2 2.2
UML2 Tools 0.8
XSD 2.4

http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/docs/plans/mdt_project_plan_1_0.html
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/docs/plans/mdt_project_plan_1_1.html

My point? If VE became a project AND a component (as EMF has become), then:

* we would rebrand the current VE code to "VE Core Component"
* we'd have the existing code as a > 1.0 component, NOT incubating
* we'd have a VE project which would be incubating
* we could add a second component for "VE Incubator Component" which
could start at 0.7

This conforms to the rules and doesn't require a brand-new 'everyone
in tools can now incubate so the PMC better pay attention' Tools
Incubator project, a la EMFT used to be.

Do you want a tools-wide incubator (like EMFT was when it included
components that are now in M2T and MDT)? or just a VE-specific one,
like MDT and M2T are, containing only incubating components relevant
to those projects?

Nick

On 10/23/07, Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Philippe, Doug, Ed, John, Jeff, and everyone else,
>
>  Currently the Dev Process and IP Policy rules say "only Projects" can have
> incubation. I agree that, with the benefit of additional experience, this
> rule doesn't seem to make as much sense as it perhaps did at first. I would
> like to have it changed for something better (where "better" means "better
> for the projects and better for the members"). However, until then, we're
> stuck with that rule. Also see Jeff's excellent discourse on the topic.
>
>  Thus the only way to get parallel IP, today, is to have an incubating
> _Project_.
>
>  Option 1 - create a Tool Incubator and incubate VE under the Tools
> Incubator.
>
>  I also suggested [1,2] that there is another option: revert the VE project
> to an Incubation Phase without reverting it's release number. I am willing
> to stand up in front of the Executive Director and/or the Board and explain
> why this is a good idea and will continue to safeguard our IP process. So
> that leaves:
>
>  Option 2 - revert VE to an Incubation Phase project without forcing a reset
> to < 1.0.
>
>  If you choose option 2, we (collectively, the VE team, the Tools PMC, and
> I) need to be very, VERY clear about how we are going to identify that VE is
> in incubation, that's its releases are incubating releases, and what it will
> take to re-graduate.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Bjorn
>
>
> --
>
>
> [end of message]
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
>