From jesusc at um.es  Tue Mar 20 07:40:45 2007
From: jesusc at um.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jes=FAs_S=E1nchez_Cuadrado?=)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:40:45 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <e7b9252e0702230908m2e148e60j6374d4b484edabeb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070223133749.GB4832@softwarelivre.org>
	<e7b9252e0702230908m2e148e60j6374d4b484edabeb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200703201240.45447.jesusc@um.es>


Hi all!

I'm back from a conference, and would like to start working on the integration 
of both versions of RMOF. I sent Antonio my code some days ago, and I'm 
already familiar with the initial version, so I think we can start a 
discussion about how to organize the project.

Jesus.

From jesusc at um.es  Tue Mar 20 07:51:13 2007
From: jesusc at um.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jes=FAs_S=E1nchez_Cuadrado?=)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:51:13 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] rubytl
Message-ID: <200703201251.13988.jesusc@um.es>

Hi again :-)

Recently I have registered RubyTL as a project in rubyforge. This project 
provides several embedded DSLs to work with models (transformations, code 
generation, "validation"), and it makes use of RMOF. I think is a good 
example of how to use RMOF.

The project page is http://rubytl.rubyforge.org. 

In addition, I have developed an Eclipse RCP application, called AGE, to 
support RubyTL. It includes an editor with syntax highlighting and launchers 
for transformation tasks.
If anyone is interested in trying RubyTL, I would recommend to use AGE. The 
tool can be downloaded from:

http://gts.inf.um.es/age

I hope this information is interesting for anyone :-)

Regards, 
Jesus

From terceiro at dcc.ufba.br  Tue Mar 20 13:47:14 2007
From: terceiro at dcc.ufba.br (Antonio S. de A. Terceiro)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:47:14 -0300
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <200703201240.45447.jesusc@um.es>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070223133749.GB4832@softwarelivre.org>
	<e7b9252e0702230908m2e148e60j6374d4b484edabeb@mail.gmail.com>
	<200703201240.45447.jesusc@um.es>
Message-ID: <20070320174714.GD5803@dcc.ufba.br>

Hi Jes?s,

Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> I'm back from a conference, and would like to start working on the
> integration of both versions of RMOF. I sent Antonio my code some days
> ago, and I'm already familiar with the initial version, so I think we
> can start a discussion about how to organize the project.

After looking at your code I think that the best path for us would be
to start from your base code, since you worked a lot more than me on
that and it's better than the original code.

I will, then, port my packaging/UI/whatever changes to the new codebase.

Thoughts?

-- 
Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
GnuPG ID: E6F73C30



From jimsteel at gmail.com  Thu Mar 22 04:05:55 2007
From: jimsteel at gmail.com (Jim Steel)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:05:55 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <20070320174714.GD5803@dcc.ufba.br>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070223133749.GB4832@softwarelivre.org>
	<e7b9252e0702230908m2e148e60j6374d4b484edabeb@mail.gmail.com>
	<200703201240.45447.jesusc@um.es> <20070320174714.GD5803@dcc.ufba.br>
Message-ID: <e7b9252e0703220105l6b52bb64x925c67799bb9c05e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

OK, the move across to subversion went through last night, so that
should make things easier in terms of reorganising structure.

Jim.

On 3/20/07, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br> wrote:
> Hi Jes?s,
>
> Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> > I'm back from a conference, and would like to start working on the
> > integration of both versions of RMOF. I sent Antonio my code some days
> > ago, and I'm already familiar with the initial version, so I think we
> > can start a discussion about how to organize the project.
>
> After looking at your code I think that the best path for us would be
> to start from your base code, since you worked a lot more than me on
> that and it's better than the original code.
>
> I will, then, port my packaging/UI/whatever changes to the new codebase.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
> GnuPG ID: E6F73C30
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmof-users mailing list
> Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
>

From jesusc at um.es  Thu Mar 22 13:02:22 2007
From: jesusc at um.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jes=FAs_S=E1nchez_Cuadrado?=)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:02:22 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <e7b9252e0703220105l6b52bb64x925c67799bb9c05e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070320174714.GD5803@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703220105l6b52bb64x925c67799bb9c05e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200703221802.23013.jesusc@um.es>

First problems with svn... :-)

Trying to checking out the current version with:

$ svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rmof

I get an error because the directory "rmof/branches/models/src/models/.svn" 
already exists. I guess the problem has appeared because the first version of 
rmof already has this directory. 

Anybody knows how to solve it?

Anyway, shall I commit my code in a branch once we fix this issue?

El Jueves, 22 de Marzo de 2007 09:05, Jim Steel escribi?:
> Hi guys,
>
> OK, the move across to subversion went through last night, so that
> should make things easier in terms of reorganising structure.
>
> Jim.
>
> On 3/20/07, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br> wrote:
> > Hi Jes?s,
> >
> > Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> > > I'm back from a conference, and would like to start working on the
> > > integration of both versions of RMOF. I sent Antonio my code some days
> > > ago, and I'm already familiar with the initial version, so I think we
> > > can start a discussion about how to organize the project.
> >
> > After looking at your code I think that the best path for us would be
> > to start from your base code, since you worked a lot more than me on
> > that and it's better than the original code.
> >
> > I will, then, port my packaging/UI/whatever changes to the new codebase.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
> > GnuPG ID: E6F73C30
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rmof-users mailing list
> > Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmof-users mailing list
> Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users

From jimsteel at gmail.com  Thu Mar 22 13:25:41 2007
From: jimsteel at gmail.com (Jim Steel)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:25:41 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <200703221802.23013.jesusc@um.es>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070320174714.GD5803@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703220105l6b52bb64x925c67799bb9c05e@mail.gmail.com>
	<200703221802.23013.jesusc@um.es>
Message-ID: <e7b9252e0703221025l690053afnaf9a9abff1338baa@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, there were some gotchas.

Our initial checkin had the superfluous "src" directory. I fixed this
up (might be worth updating for that).

Also, for some reason the migration to SVN resulted in copies of the
trunk in tags/model and branches/model. I don't think we need them, so
I've deleted them.

The usual way with SVN as I understand it is to have personal branches
under /branches - I've created one like this for myself. Antonio, you
were keen on the move to SVN, do you have a preferred repository
structure in terms of personal/release branches/tags?

So Jes?s, yeah, go ahead and put your code into a personal branch to
begin with. Then we can start moving bits across to the trunk based on
discussion.

Jim.



On 3/22/07, Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado <jesusc at um.es> wrote:
> First problems with svn... :-)
>
> Trying to checking out the current version with:
>
> $ svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rmof
>
> I get an error because the directory "rmof/branches/models/src/models/.svn"
> already exists. I guess the problem has appeared because the first version of
> rmof already has this directory.
>
> Anybody knows how to solve it?
>
> Anyway, shall I commit my code in a branch once we fix this issue?
>
> El Jueves, 22 de Marzo de 2007 09:05, Jim Steel escribi?:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > OK, the move across to subversion went through last night, so that
> > should make things easier in terms of reorganising structure.
> >
> > Jim.
> >
> > On 3/20/07, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br> wrote:
> > > Hi Jes?s,
> > >
> > > Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> > > > I'm back from a conference, and would like to start working on the
> > > > integration of both versions of RMOF. I sent Antonio my code some days
> > > > ago, and I'm already familiar with the initial version, so I think we
> > > > can start a discussion about how to organize the project.
> > >
> > > After looking at your code I think that the best path for us would be
> > > to start from your base code, since you worked a lot more than me on
> > > that and it's better than the original code.
> > >
> > > I will, then, port my packaging/UI/whatever changes to the new codebase.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
> > > GnuPG ID: E6F73C30
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rmof-users mailing list
> > > Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rmof-users mailing list
> > Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
> _______________________________________________
> Rmof-users mailing list
> Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
>

From terceiro at dcc.ufba.br  Thu Mar 22 14:03:31 2007
From: terceiro at dcc.ufba.br (Antonio S. de A. Terceiro)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:03:31 -0300
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <e7b9252e0703221025l690053afnaf9a9abff1338baa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070320174714.GD5803@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703220105l6b52bb64x925c67799bb9c05e@mail.gmail.com>
	<200703221802.23013.jesusc@um.es>
	<e7b9252e0703221025l690053afnaf9a9abff1338baa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070322180331.GA7397@dcc.ufba.br>

Jim Steel escreveu isso a?:
> Yeah, there were some gotchas.
> 
> Our initial checkin had the superfluous "src" directory. I fixed this
> up (might be worth updating for that).
> 
> Also, for some reason the migration to SVN resulted in copies of the
> trunk in tags/model and branches/model. I don't think we need them, so
> I've deleted them.
> 
> The usual way with SVN as I understand it is to have personal branches
> under /branches - I've created one like this for myself. Antonio, you
> were keen on the move to SVN, do you have a preferred repository
> structure in terms of personal/release branches/tags?

I think that just using version numbers for the names of release
branches and tags is sufficient to distinguish them from personal ones,
which are named after the person using it or the task being carried on
it.

Release branches are only need to be used if you want to provide
backport of bugfixes to already released version, which I don't think
will be the case.

> So Jes?s, yeah, go ahead and put your code into a personal branch to
> begin with. Then we can start moving bits across to the trunk based on
> discussion.

IMHO the most practical way to work is to just remove trunk and import
Jes?s' code into it, and we can work on it in trunk itself.

Personal branches are needed only when someone wants to make big changes
during a somewhat long period of time that would make other people's
work impossible if done directly in trunk.

In practice we can work with

Something like:

branches/
  terceiro/
  jimsteel/
  reworking-packaging/
  ... whatever ...
tags/
  0.1.1/
  0.1.2/
trunk/

-- 
Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
GnuPG ID: E6F73C30



From terceiro at dcc.ufba.br  Thu Mar 22 14:30:26 2007
From: terceiro at dcc.ufba.br (Antonio S. de A. Terceiro)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:30:26 -0300
Subject: [Rmof-users] hanging around on IRC
Message-ID: <20070322183026.GA7578@dcc.ufba.br>

Hi there,

I registered a #rmof channel on irc.freenode.net, so if someone wants
to chat about rmof development while on IRC, there it is.

-- 
Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
GnuPG ID: E6F73C30



From jesusc at um.es  Fri Mar 23 12:36:17 2007
From: jesusc at um.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jes=FAs_S=E1nchez_Cuadrado?=)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:36:17 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <20070322180331.GA7397@dcc.ufba.br>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703221025l690053afnaf9a9abff1338baa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070322180331.GA7397@dcc.ufba.br>
Message-ID: <200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>


Just one suggestion. We should split the project in at least two packages,
one for the core, and other for the editor. So, we can have something like,

trunk/
	core/
	gtk_editor/
	anything_else/
branches/
	...whatever...
tags/
	core_0.1.1/
	gtk_editor_0.1.1/

Maybe I have an obsession with spliting things :-) but in the future we can 
take advantage of such a separation if we decide to develop anything else 
around RMOF (for instance, a database persistence mechanism). 

I'm going to clean a bit the code and if there is any complaints about this, I 
will commit it tonight.

> IMHO the most practical way to work is to just remove trunk and import
> Jes?s' code into it, and we can work on it in trunk itself.
>
> Personal branches are needed only when someone wants to make big changes
> during a somewhat long period of time that would make other people's
> work impossible if done directly in trunk.
>
> In practice we can work with
>
> Something like:
>
> branches/
>   terceiro/
>   jimsteel/
>   reworking-packaging/
>   ... whatever ...
> tags/
>   0.1.1/
>   0.1.2/
> trunk/

From jimsteel at gmail.com  Fri Mar 23 13:14:46 2007
From: jimsteel at gmail.com (Jim Steel)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:14:46 +0100
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703221025l690053afnaf9a9abff1338baa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070322180331.GA7397@dcc.ufba.br> <200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>
Message-ID: <e7b9252e0703231014q613c6c6cue045d622a91cb1ae@mail.gmail.com>

That sounds like a good idea. I guess the other modules that we could
perhaps split out are the API generator and the XMI parser &
generator, although we can always break them out later if we feel the
urge.

Jim.


On 3/23/07, Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado <jesusc at um.es> wrote:
>
> Just one suggestion. We should split the project in at least two packages,
> one for the core, and other for the editor. So, we can have something like,
>
> trunk/
>         core/
>         gtk_editor/
>         anything_else/
> branches/
>         ...whatever...
> tags/
>         core_0.1.1/
>         gtk_editor_0.1.1/
>
> Maybe I have an obsession with spliting things :-) but in the future we can
> take advantage of such a separation if we decide to develop anything else
> around RMOF (for instance, a database persistence mechanism).
>
> I'm going to clean a bit the code and if there is any complaints about this, I
> will commit it tonight.
>
> > IMHO the most practical way to work is to just remove trunk and import
> > Jes?s' code into it, and we can work on it in trunk itself.
> >
> > Personal branches are needed only when someone wants to make big changes
> > during a somewhat long period of time that would make other people's
> > work impossible if done directly in trunk.
> >
> > In practice we can work with
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > branches/
> >   terceiro/
> >   jimsteel/
> >   reworking-packaging/
> >   ... whatever ...
> > tags/
> >   0.1.1/
> >   0.1.2/
> > trunk/
> _______________________________________________
> Rmof-users mailing list
> Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
>

From terceiro at dcc.ufba.br  Tue Mar 27 16:34:04 2007
From: terceiro at dcc.ufba.br (Antonio S. de A. Terceiro)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:34:04 -0300
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703221025l690053afnaf9a9abff1338baa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070322180331.GA7397@dcc.ufba.br>
	<200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>
Message-ID: <20070327203404.GA8549@dcc.ufba.br>

Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> 
> Just one suggestion. We should split the project in at least two packages,
> one for the core, and other for the editor. So, we can have something like,
> 
> trunk/
> 	core/
> 	gtk_editor/
> 	anything_else/

Ok, good idea.

> branches/
> 	...whatever...
> tags/
> 	core_0.1.1/
> 	gtk_editor_0.1.1/

We can tag just as 0.1.1, and have the subdirs there (i.e. we tag the
whole trunk as tags/0.1.1).

I've just imported the latest RMOF code Jes?s sent me as trunk/rmof.
I'll add my code under trunk/rmof-editor, and start to work on, in this
order:

1) rmof packaging
2) rmof-editor changes to use external rmof + new name + whatever comes
to my mind
3) a new, minimalist website for the project

Ideas/rants/help offers will be appreciated. :)

Cheers,

-- 
Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
GnuPG ID: E6F73C30



From jesusc at um.es  Tue Mar 27 16:52:38 2007
From: jesusc at um.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jes=FAs_S=E1nchez_Cuadrado?=)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:52:38 +0200
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <20070327203404.GA8549@dcc.ufba.br>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>
	<20070327203404.GA8549@dcc.ufba.br>
Message-ID: <200703272252.38174.jesusc@um.es>


Great! We can start working with the code :-)

One question about how to handle bugs and new features. I have found a bug in 
the serializer, so what should I do? Shall I create a new ticket in 
rmof.rubyforge.org and then try to fix it? I think this is the usual way, but 
it's my first time in a project with several people, so...

If one of us come up with a new feature, what will be the procedure? Maybe 
sending a message to the list or a new ticket?


El Martes, 27 de Marzo de 2007 22:34, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro escribi?:
> Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> > Just one suggestion. We should split the project in at least two
> > packages, one for the core, and other for the editor. So, we can have
> > something like,
> >
> > trunk/
> > 	core/
> > 	gtk_editor/
> > 	anything_else/
>
> Ok, good idea.
>
> > branches/
> > 	...whatever...
> > tags/
> > 	core_0.1.1/
> > 	gtk_editor_0.1.1/
>
> We can tag just as 0.1.1, and have the subdirs there (i.e. we tag the
> whole trunk as tags/0.1.1).
>
> I've just imported the latest RMOF code Jes?s sent me as trunk/rmof.
> I'll add my code under trunk/rmof-editor, and start to work on, in this
> order:
>
> 1) rmof packaging
> 2) rmof-editor changes to use external rmof + new name + whatever comes
> to my mind
> 3) a new, minimalist website for the project
>
> Ideas/rants/help offers will be appreciated. :)
>
> Cheers,

From terceiro at dcc.ufba.br  Tue Mar 27 18:22:43 2007
From: terceiro at dcc.ufba.br (Antonio S. de A. Terceiro)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:22:43 -0300
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <200703272252.38174.jesusc@um.es>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es>
	<20070327203404.GA8549@dcc.ufba.br>
	<200703272252.38174.jesusc@um.es>
Message-ID: <20070327222243.GA11123@dcc.ufba.br>

Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> 
> Great! We can start working with the code :-)
> 
> One question about how to handle bugs and new features. I have found a bug in 
> the serializer, so what should I do? Shall I create a new ticket in 
> rmof.rubyforge.org and then try to fix it? I think this is the usual way, but 
> it's my first time in a project with several people, so...
> 
> If one of us come up with a new feature, what will be the procedure? Maybe 
> sending a message to the list or a new ticket?

I think that the best thing to do is always to use the rubyforge tools,
for both bugs and features. If a new person says "hi, I want to help"
we'll have a place to point and say "nice, you could start fixing this
bugs or implementing those features". Besides, using the tools adds
some structure to the workflow and will provide us relevant
information about the project in the future.

Off course, discussing in the mailing list is by far much more practical
than using a web interface to tickets, but after the issue is
solved/discussed one could post on the ticket pointing to the mailing
list thread for reference.
  
It seems that one needs to be project admin to configure the monitoring
for the tickets, it would be nice if we can configure the mailing list
to monitor the tickets (i.e. everytime someone opens a ticket, the
mailing list is notified).

-- 
Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
GnuPG ID: E6F73C30



From jimsteel at gmail.com  Fri Mar 30 04:15:08 2007
From: jimsteel at gmail.com (Jim Steel)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:15:08 +0200
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <20070327222243.GA11123@dcc.ufba.br>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<200703231736.17652.jesusc@um.es> <20070327203404.GA8549@dcc.ufba.br>
	<200703272252.38174.jesusc@um.es> <20070327222243.GA11123@dcc.ufba.br>
Message-ID: <e7b9252e0703300115n2acc3cd8yb47509cdf9a48d8f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

I've been quickly scanning the changes to try and understand them. For
the most part, the reorganisation into directories seems pretty good.
I have a couple of questions though:
- Has the core changed from EMOF to ECore? If so, is there a reason why?
- Did the Editor get lost in the migration process?

Jim.



On 3/28/07, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br> wrote:
> Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> >
> > Great! We can start working with the code :-)
> >
> > One question about how to handle bugs and new features. I have found a bug in
> > the serializer, so what should I do? Shall I create a new ticket in
> > rmof.rubyforge.org and then try to fix it? I think this is the usual way, but
> > it's my first time in a project with several people, so...
> >
> > If one of us come up with a new feature, what will be the procedure? Maybe
> > sending a message to the list or a new ticket?
>
> I think that the best thing to do is always to use the rubyforge tools,
> for both bugs and features. If a new person says "hi, I want to help"
> we'll have a place to point and say "nice, you could start fixing this
> bugs or implementing those features". Besides, using the tools adds
> some structure to the workflow and will provide us relevant
> information about the project in the future.
>
> Off course, discussing in the mailing list is by far much more practical
> than using a web interface to tickets, but after the issue is
> solved/discussed one could post on the ticket pointing to the mailing
> list thread for reference.
>
> It seems that one needs to be project admin to configure the monitoring
> for the tickets, it would be nice if we can configure the mailing list
> to monitor the tickets (i.e. everytime someone opens a ticket, the
> mailing list is notified).
>
> --
> Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
> GnuPG ID: E6F73C30
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmof-users mailing list
> Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
>

From jesusc at um.es  Fri Mar 30 04:45:57 2007
From: jesusc at um.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jes=FAs_S=E1nchez_Cuadrado?=)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:45:57 +0200
Subject: [Rmof-users] RMOF - new version?
In-Reply-To: <e7b9252e0703300115n2acc3cd8yb47509cdf9a48d8f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070222182348.GA8137@dcc.ufba.br>
	<20070327222243.GA11123@dcc.ufba.br>
	<e7b9252e0703300115n2acc3cd8yb47509cdf9a48d8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200703301045.57499.jesusc@um.es>

Hi,

El Viernes, 30 de Marzo de 2007 10:15, Jim Steel escribi?:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been quickly scanning the changes to try and understand them. For
> the most part, the reorganisation into directories seems pretty good.
> I have a couple of questions though:
> - Has the core changed from EMOF to ECore? If so, is there a reason why?
There is no particular reason. In fact, my initial idea was to define a "duck 
typed interface" in order to have two cores: emof and ecore. This is a TODO 
task. I think that is not the same to parse an ecore file using the emof 
meta-metamodel (for instance, what about the eAnnotations). 
To develop the EMOF core your previous code should be enough, with some 
changes. 

> - Did the Editor get lost in the migration process?
>

Unfortunately, yes :-(
We need to adapt the editor code to the new structure. I think Antonio is in 
charge of this issue (see a previous mail from him).

Jesus.

> Jim.
>
> On 3/28/07, Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br> wrote:
> > Jes?s S?nchez Cuadrado escreveu isso a?:
> > > Great! We can start working with the code :-)
> > >
> > > One question about how to handle bugs and new features. I have found a
> > > bug in the serializer, so what should I do? Shall I create a new ticket
> > > in rmof.rubyforge.org and then try to fix it? I think this is the usual
> > > way, but it's my first time in a project with several people, so...
> > >
> > > If one of us come up with a new feature, what will be the procedure?
> > > Maybe sending a message to the list or a new ticket?
> >
> > I think that the best thing to do is always to use the rubyforge tools,
> > for both bugs and features. If a new person says "hi, I want to help"
> > we'll have a place to point and say "nice, you could start fixing this
> > bugs or implementing those features". Besides, using the tools adds
> > some structure to the workflow and will provide us relevant
> > information about the project in the future.
> >
> > Off course, discussing in the mailing list is by far much more practical
> > than using a web interface to tickets, but after the issue is
> > solved/discussed one could post on the ticket pointing to the mailing
> > list thread for reference.
> >
> > It seems that one needs to be project admin to configure the monitoring
> > for the tickets, it would be nice if we can configure the mailing list
> > to monitor the tickets (i.e. everytime someone opens a ticket, the
> > mailing list is notified).
> >
> > --
> > Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <terceiro at dcc.ufba.br>
> > GnuPG ID: E6F73C30
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rmof-users mailing list
> > Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmof-users mailing list
> Rmof-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rmof-users