Hi Nicolas, Webmaster had restored my access rights to development server and I published QVTo M4 build. I updated 'm2m-qvtoml.b3aggrcon' with this build for Juno and aggregation build was ok ( https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/juno.runAggregator/189/).
So QVTo normally joined Juno sim.release train. In nearest days I'm going to take up other formal steps for Juno ( http://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements). Regards, Sergey On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Rouquette, Nicolas F (313K) < nicolas.f.rouque...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Sergey, > > The patch we discussed back in August is still waiting approval from > JPL/Caltech lawyers; I've escalated this request recently. > > At the OMG, I officially represent NASA's interests in modeling > specifications and in that capacity, I strongly support the excellent work > Eclipse has done in implementing OMG's key modeling specifications in > various Eclipse projects -- EMF core, EMF/XSD, OCL, UML, QVTO. > > Also at the OMG, I have pioneered using QVTO for producing the official, > published machine-readable files for several specifications: > SysML 1.2 -- http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.2/ > UML 2.4.1 -- http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4/ > SysML 1.3 -- not yet publicly available > > At JPL, we've developed a rigorous integration between MOF2 / OWL2 using > QVTO, SPARQL and OWL2 reasoners. > > Whether it is for JPL or for NASA, it is clear to me that QVTO is a very > important specification and the Eclipse QVTO is essential in making this > specification practically useful. > > I hope this suffices to clearly indicate that there is a strong interest > in QVTo participating in the Juno release train. > > On the commercial side, I'm aware of two vendors that use Eclipse QVTO in > their products: > > - IBM's Rational Software Architect 8 is based on Eclipse Helios and > specifically refers to Eclipse QVTO as a technology option for model > transformation > - NoMagic developed a JSR-233 script engine wrapper to use Eclipse QVTO in > their flagship modeling tool, MagicDraw 17.0 > > As I mentioned before, I believe it would be useful to contact these > vendors to promote the fact that they use Eclipse QVTO in their products > and perhaps create additional revenue streams to support the ongoing > development/improvement of Eclipse QVTO. > > At least, I've personally committed $1,000 specifically to support Eclipse > QVTO; this means you and whoever else works as an unpaid committer on > Eclipse QVTO. > > - Nicolas. > > On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Sergey Boyko wrote: > > Hi Philipp, > > Problem with QVTo participation on Juno release train comes from the fact > that I didn't get clear response whether somebody requires that > participation. > > When we discussed with Nicolas (in August) patch from NASA we decided that > QVTo release for Indigo is the right target to merge the patch to (I > prepared maintenance branch for that). > > I also expect some input from re-istablished GMF Tooling project but there > was nothing. > > Without clear interest of QVTo participating in Juno realease train I > didn't see the need to perform all the administrative steps to keep project > on train. > > > Regards, > Sergey Boyko > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG < > kut...@montages.com> wrote: > >> Perfect! >> >> I wish you all Happy Holidays! >> >> It is a great feeling that the OMG standards based projects are going >> strong and will all be on the Juno releasse train! >> >> If there is a doubt in the future that any of these projects will not be >> on the release train, simply because nobody is there to fulfill the >> formalities of the project or the details of the newest build project, we >> can always help. As Miles mentions, this may need to add some people of >> other modeling projects to the committer teams. >> >> Could the modeling PMC send out a mail and ask the modeling teams >> a) who sees a risk they will not be on the release train, simply because >> of lack to fulfill the formalities and the build project >> b) who would volunteer to help out for other projects. >> >> As well, it might be a good policy, to have a backup plan, if a component >> lead is either not available, or ill, or otherwise gone in the very moment >> he needs to promote the project. Immagine an important project, with lots >> of dependencies does not release, simply because the component lead is >> in-available. The costs can be huge. >> >> Thanks for the great work of the Eclipse Foundation, >> Philipp >> >> >> >> >> On 17.12.2011 01:44, Ed Willink wrote: >> >>> Hi Miles >>> >>> There is no need to panic. In view of some delicacies, considerable >>> correspondence has happened off-list. >>> >>> Nicolas Rouquette has now resolved both the problem and the delicacies >>> by his open email to these lists that you must have missed. >>> >>> Thanks to Nicolas' generosity, QVTo will be available in Juno supported >>> by the existing QVTo team. >>> >>> The only process exception that may be needed is tolerance of a one or >>> two day tardiness in setting the contribution flag. >>> >>> I'm sure we all wish to thank Nicolas for being so helpful to Eclipse. >>> Thank you Nicolas. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Ed Willink >>> >>> >>> On 16/12/2011 23:57, Miles Parker wrote: >>> >>>> Philipp, >>>> >>>> You should identify QVTO leadership, which means M2M nee MMT, so that >>>> they can make the change in their portal. (This of course would have to be >>>> in the middle of a project renaming!) That would require all of MMT to join >>>> train, I don't know if it's possible to do this more fine-grained than >>>> that. PMC can flip the bit for MMT, but I don't think we should do that >>>> unless/until we have support from project leadership or at least active >>>> committers if they exist. Comments? >>>> >>>> William, I'm cc'ing you because I note that you have contact with >>>> Frédéric Jouault who is project lead..? Perhaps you could pass on his email >>>> to Phillip. >>>> >>>> FWLIW, I'll support any process exception if needed/possible once that >>>> is sorted out. Phillip, thanks for taking the initiative on this. Why don't >>>> you report back to PMC list as you make progress? >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> >>>> Miles >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear PMC. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to notify that QVTO should flip the bit for Juno. I hope >>>>> this has already been done by the QVTO team itself. >>>>> >>>>> In the unexpected case, that the current QVTO team will not have time >>>>> to >>>>> trigger the newest ways of building the QVTO, I can guarantee >>>>> development time from the GMF Tolling component lead Michael Golubev, >>>>> who knows well the newest ways of building. >>>>> >>>>> As well, there is a cummulative patch from Nicolas Rouquette, which we >>>>> would love to integrate in the new build, if the QVTO team has not yet >>>>> done. >>>>> >>>>> The GMF Tooling project has a strong dependency on QVTO and would fail >>>>> in their efforts to do their releases in the future, if QVTO build >>>>> fails. >>>>> >>>>> As well, the sponsor of the 3 FTE working on GMF tooling requests that >>>>> GMF Tooling as well as the project it depends on are remaining in Juno, >>>>> so we have a multiyear 3 FTE sponsorship at risk, if this does not >>>>> happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We want to do all to support the current team to do the Juno builds. >>>>> There is a budget from Nicolas Rouquette and us, which would offer $ >>>>> 2000 to who ever in the QVTO team wants to do this. And we support with >>>>> development time from the 3 FTE working on GMF Tooling, if needed. >>>>> >>>>> Please forward this message as well to the QVTO team, whom I do not >>>>> know >>>>> personally. Please assure them of our full support. I did not find a >>>>> mailing list for them. >>>>> >>>>> And, as today is the deadline, please accept this notification, even if >>>>> formally it comes from the wrong side. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Philipp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>>> modeling-pmc mailing list >>>>> modeling-...@eclipse.org >>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc> >>>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >>>> cross-project-issues-dev@**eclipse.org<cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> >>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/cross-**project-issues-dev<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4684 - Release Date: >>>> 12/16/11 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> modeling-pmc mailing list >> modeling-...@eclipse.org >> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc> >> > > >
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
