Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [gef-dev] Fabian Steeg to help lead Zest

From the peanut gallery (but I am on PMC for modeling so I think I know a bunch of stuff I don't) there is no problem at all with breaking changes at this point in Indigo train. That's sort of the whole point. It wouldn't be a bad thing to continue to support the 1.0 release within Indigo as well, though OTOH speaking as one of the only (I think) consumers of Zest in Indigo, I'd much rather deal with the changes to 2.0 and leave 1.0 behind even if the API is not locked down yet. That get's me to full 2.0 compatibility when the RCs start rolling out.

On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Fabian Steeg wrote:

I'm trying to understand which of the issues mentioned here are still undecided and which are just todos...

From bugs 283252 [1] and 307807 [2] I was under the impression that if we limit the breaking changes as much as we can, keep the 1.x release available, and document how to migrate from 1.x to 2.0, we can release Zest 2.0 with the train.

I have started such documentation on the wiki [3] for the breaking changes I'm aware of. Is this the kind of information that should go into the project plan? Or would the plan just mention the fact that there are some breaking changes in the Zest component which are detailed in the release notes?

Is this approach feasible in general and we just have to get the documentation into the right places, or are there any fundamental issues with releasing Zest 2.0 with Indigo?

Cheers,
Fabian


On 10.02.2011, at 23:56, Miles Parker wrote:


Yep, as a heavy user I've never had any confusion about that. I *would* have confusion -- and annoyance -- if Zest just arbitrarily changed versions whenever GEF itself changed. I think "sub-project" level is reasonable. This is sort of related to the BIRT change to v. 3.7, which I think *is* confusing.

On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Ian Bull wrote:

We have the same schedule as GEF.  The version number / API thing is no different than any other project IMHO. For example, p2 has different version numbers than equinox, but they are in the same project.  In fact, p2 has different versions across its bundles.  

I think grouping projects based on their 'goals' and 'intents' is the best idea.  And Zest/Draw2D/Gef all have similar goals -- runtimes for graphical manipulation of information.

Just my $0.02.

cheers,
ian

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If Zest has different release numbers and a different schedule from GEF,
does it make more sense for it to be a separate project? Just askin'

Wayne

On 02/10/2011 04:33 PM, Alexander Nyßen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> what about the option to deliver Zest 1.x together with GEF 3.7 for
> Indigo and to come up with a Zest 2.0 & Draw2d/GEF 4.0 combination in
> 2012? I think there are a couple of things in Draw2d/GEF that could be
> cleaned up as well, and doing so would give us the chance to better
> align the three components with each other (I haven't taken a look into
> Zest 2.0 yet, but Zest 1.x e.g. had to "fork" XYScaledGraphics, which
> could be merged back into ScaledGraphics; I suppose there are similar
> places in Zest 2.0). What do you think?
>
> Cheers
> Alexander
>
> Am 10.02.2011 um 19:52 schrieb Ian Bull:
>
>> I will look at those...
>>
>> Just to be clear, we don't need to break existing users... we can ship
>> Zest 2.0 and Zest 1.x... we can also not put Zest 2.0 in the indigo
>> repo.
>>
>> But I will review the plan.
>>
>> cheers,
>> ian
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>     That is good Ian, there is no official process as there is no such
>>     hierarchy. We are all GEF project committers and GEF is comprised
>>     of the Draw2d, GEF and Zest components. If you wish to share the
>>     leadership of the Zest component, that is fine (there are only two
>>     Zest committers :-)).
>>
>>     A reminder of our project plan at
>>     http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=tools.gef
>>     <http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=tools.gef>
>>     . Since we are bent on a major version change to Zest breaking all
>>     existing Zest users, concrete plans would be useful.
>>
>>     Cheers...
>>     Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     From:         Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>     <mailto:irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>     To:         GEF development <gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>     <mailto:gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Fabian Steeg <fsteeg@xxxxxxxxx
>>     <mailto:fsteeg@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>     Date:         02/10/2011 12:09 PM
>>     Subject:         [gef-dev] Fabian Steeg to help lead Zest
>>     Sent by:         gef-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>     <mailto:gef-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>>     I would like to nominate Fabian Steeg as co-lead for the Zest
>>     component in the GEF project.  While this is more symbolic than
>>     anything else (I'm not sure there is a formal 'lead' for component
>>     in the Eclipse Development Process).  Fabian is doing a majority
>>     of the work on Zest these days and he is showing great judgment.
>>      Fabian has an excellent understanding of Zest and has been
>>     working on the transition to Zest 2.0.  Having Fabian help lead
>>     Zest will make it a much better component!
>>
>>     I don't think there is an official process for this, but I assume
>>     that Anthony (GEF lead) and I both need to give a +1.  (This
>>     e-mail is of course my +1).
>>
>>     cheers,
>>     ian
>>
>>     --
>>     R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
>>     http://eclipsesource.com <http://eclipsesource.com/> |
>>     http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
>>     <http://twitter.com/eclipsesource>_______________________________________________
>>     gef-dev mailing list
>>     gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>     https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
>>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     gef-dev mailing list
>>     gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>     https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
>> http://eclipsesource.com <http://eclipsesource.com/> |
>> http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
>> _______________________________________________
>> gef-dev mailing list
>> gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
>
> --
> Dr. Alexander Nyßen
> Dipl.-Inform.
> Software-Engineer
>
> Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-210
> Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
> Mobil: +49 (0) 151 /  17396743
>
> http://www.itemis.de
> alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> itemis AG
> Am Brambusch 15-24
> 44536 Lünen
>
> Rechtlicher Hinweis:
>
> Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
>
> Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek,
> Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
>
> Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Stephan Grollmann, Michael Neuhaus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gef-dev mailing list
> gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
_______________________________________________
gef-dev mailing list
gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev



--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
_______________________________________________
gef-dev mailing list
gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev

_______________________________________________
gef-dev mailing list
gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev

_______________________________________________
gef-dev mailing list
gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev

Back to the top