EMF Compare/Release Review/3.1.0
- 1 Mars Release Review - EMF Compare 3.1
- 1.1 New & Noteworthy
- 1.2 Quality of APIs
- 1.3 End of Life Issues
- 1.4 Commiter Diversity
- 1.5 IP Issues
- 1.6 Non-Code Aspects
- 1.7 APIs
- 1.8 Documentation
- 1.9 Bugzilla
- 1.10 Tool usability
- 1.11 Standards
- 1.12 UI Usability
- 1.13 Communities
- 1.14 Committer Changes
- 1.15 Schedule
- 1.16 Project Plan
- 1.17 Legal Notices
Mars Release Review - EMF Compare 3.1
Laurent Goubet (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Release Review : May 2015
Communication Channel : eclipse.modeling.emf newsgroup
Process Documentation : http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php
New & Noteworthy
Quality of APIs
The component lead certifies that the requirements for Eclipse Quality APIs have been met for this release. All non-API code is in "internal" packages.
End of Life Issues
There are no outstanding issues with the API state of this release. All mehods and classes that face deletion have been marked as deprecated with instructions on how to switch to the new behavior, and will stay in the code base until the next release.
6 active commiters from Obeo
- Arthur Daussy
- Axel Richard
- Cédric Brun
- Laurent Delaigue
- Laurent Goubet (Project Lead)
- Mikaël Barbero
1 active commiter from
- Philip Langer
1 inactive commiter from Obeo
- Cédric Notot
The about files and use licenses are in place as per the Guidelines to Legal Documentation.
- CQ 5460 - Google Collections Version: 1.0 https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5460
- CQ 6518 - Guava Version: 10.0.1 https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6518
- CQ 7056 - Guava Version: 11.0.2 https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7056
- CQ 8824 - google-diff-match-patch Version: r106 https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8824
- CQ 9311 - Neko HTML Version: 1.9.14 https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9311
- CQ 9312 - Apache Xerces Version: 2.8 https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9312
Large contributions have been made through individual CQs, which can all be consulted from https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?component=modeling.emf.compare .
All other contributions (code, documentation, images, etc) have been committed by individuals who are either Members of the Foundation or have signed the appropriate Committer Agreement. In either case, these are individuals who have signed, and are abiding by, the Eclipse IP Policy. The other contributions of the IP log are not significant or are written 100% by employees of the same employer (Obeo) as the Submitting Committer (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf).
All contribution Questionnaires have been completed.
The "provider" field of each plugin is set to "Eclipse Modeling Project".
The "copyright" field of each plugin is set to the copyright owner.
Any third-party logos or trademarks included in the distribution (icons, logos, etc) have been licensed under the EPL.
The EMF Compare IP log is located at http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?projectid=modeling.emfcompare
The project is built from the EMF Compare HIPP through Tycho. A nightly is built once a day if the SCM polling sees a change from the last build.
1103 unit tests launched on every build.
Code coverage is about 70% of the core.
Common formatter and compiler configuration used throughout the whole project's plug-ins.
Checkstyle activated on all distinct plug-ins.
Eclemma used on a regular basis to ensure and improve code coverage from the unit tests.
Yourkit java Profiler used on a regular basis to improved performances and avoid bottlenecks.
Findbugs launched on a regular basis to avoid detectable bugs.
Javadoc represents about 40% of the java source code.
An analysis of the code base is available on Ohloh.
Metamodel definitions and interfaces are considered APIs.
Commitment to provide stand-alone comparison feature (Jar that can be used without Eclipse with minimal to no dependencies towards eclipse core Jars).
Non-API classes are separated from the exposed API through an "internal" namespace.
Non-API packages are exported with an internal visibility so that they remain visible but with a discouraged access warning.
All of the documentation for EMF Compare is available online at . It will be completed and extended with tutorials as the version matures.
Here is a snapshot taken on May the 16th of all bugs that have changed since release 2.0.0 (Juno). These figures are subject to change until the official release of 2.1.0 as the Team is currently in the process of fixing bugs.
Note that these are only the bugs that changed somehow in-between the two releases (2.1 and 3.0), reflecting the activity during Luna development. At the time of writing, there are 59 opened and 2 unconfirmed bugs against EMF Compare.
Localization : integrated into Babel
No standard exists concerning the model comparison, though EMF Compare works nicely with any standard-based metamodel.
Since the 1.2 release a specific support for the UML standard is included in EMF Compare. This is also included in the 3.* stream.
EMF Compare is conforming to the Eclipse user interface guidelines.
Talks have been given on the following events:
- Eclipse Con Europe 2013
- Eclipse Con US 2014
Talks have been submitted for the following events: Eclipse Con France 2014:
- Activity on the newsgroups
- eclipse.modeling.emf : 60 new threads on EMF Compare from June 2013 to May 2014
- eclipse.tools.emf : 13 new threads on EMF Compare from June 2013 to May 2014
- About one update every two months on Planet Eclipse.
There have been no changes in the list of commiters for this release, but the project lead has switched from Cédric Brun to Mikaël Barbero in November 2013 (https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/emf-dev/msg01677.html).
EMF Compare 3.0 follows the Kepler Release train, on +2 offsets.
The EMF Compare 3.0 project plan is available at https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.emfcompare/releases/3.0.0/plan
Java and all Java-based trademarks are trademarks of Oracle, Inc. in the United States, other countries, or both.
UML and XMI are trademarks of the Object Management Group.
Other company, product, or service names may be trademarks or service marks of others.