EMF Compare/Release Review/2.1.0

Kepler Release Review - EMF Compare 2.1

Laurent Goubet (laurent.goubet@obeo.fr)

Release Review : May 21, 2013

Communication Channel : eclipse.modeling.emf newsgroup

Process Documentation : http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php

Project Plan : http://www.eclipse.org/emf/compare/project-info/plan-kepler.xml

New and Noteworthy

EMF Compare/New and Noteworthy/2.1.0

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

EMF Compare 2.0 made all API from the 1.* stream obsolete. As such, end of life issues only concern the 2.0 as compared with the 2.1 code base.

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.

Commiter Diversity

5 active commiters from Obeo

• Cédric Brun (Project Lead)
• Cédric Notot
• Laurent Goubet
• Mikaël Barbero
• Axel Richard

1 inactive commiter from Itemis

• Patrick könemann

IP Issues

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

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.emf.compare

Non-Code Aspects

Continuous Integration

Project is built from the Eclipse hudson instance through Tycho. A nightly is built once a day if the SCM polling sees a change from the last build.

Unit Tests

911 unit tests launched on every build.

Code coverage is about 80% of the core.

Code Quality

Common formatter and compiler configuration used throughout the whole project's plug-ins.

Checkstyle activated on most 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.

APIs

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.

Documentation

All of the documentation for EMF Compare is available from the wiki. It will be completed and extended with tutorial as this version matures.

Bugzilla

Here is a snapshot taken on May the 15th 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 (2.0 and 2.1). At the time of writing, there are 43 opened and 2 unconfirmed bugs against EMF Compare.

Tool usability

Localization : integrated into Babel

Standards

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 2.* stream.

UI Usability

EMF Compare is conforming to the Eclipse user interface guidelines.

Communities

Talks have been given on the following events:

• Eclipse Con Europe 2012
  • EMFCompare 2.0: Scaling to Millions
• Eclipse Con US 2013
  • EMFCompare 2.0: Scaling to Millions

Talks have been submitted for the following events: Eclipse Con France 2013:

• Share, Compare and merge your models with EMF Compare

Other medium:

• Activity on the newsgroups
  • eclipse.modeling.emf : 51 new threads on EMF Compare from June 2012 to May 2013
  • eclipse.tools.emf : 16 new threads on EMF Compare from June 2012 to May 2013
• Activity on stackoverflow.com (emf-compare tag created on April 8, 2013) : 6 new questions tagged with emf-compare
• About one update every two months on Planet Eclipse.

Committer Changes

One new committer since March 2013: Axel Richard from Obeo

Schedule

EMF Compare 2.1 follows the Kepler Release train, on +2 offsets.

M6	03/19/2013
M7	05/07/2013
RC1	05/21/2013
RC2	05/28/2013
RC3	06/04/2013
RC4	06/11/2013
Final	06/26/2013

Project Plan

The EMF Compare 2.1 project plan is available at http://www.eclipse.org/emf/compare/project-info/plan-kepler.xml

Legal Notices

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.