[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Well, we can refresh the criteria as we go along, but for "Eclipse LTS", I've always talked about it as only applying to simultaneous release projects.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: cbi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:11:58
To: <cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Common-build Developers discussion <cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cbi-dev] LTS-ready
David, Mike
I can foresee that industry working groups, particularly those with
their own name/brand/logo, may want to have their own Simultaneous
release or none at all.
I think where David was headed makes a lot of sense - there are good
practice things in the requirements for the Simultaneous release that
should be mutual for LTS.
In the same line of thinking, it likely makes sense to move towards
decoupling language & technology specific requirements from the release
& LTS requirements. e.g. Java requirements, C/C++, etc.
Andrew
On 01/12/2012 01:09 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> David,
>
> You're right. This should be included. It is explicitly part of our
> thinking.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Should another criteria to be "LTS ready" be "Be part of the yearly
>> Simultaneous Release"?
>>
>> It seems many of the presentations about LTS sort of assume it, but it is
> not
>> stated.
>>
>> I doubt there is any technical reason this is literally required but it
> would sure
>> make thing easier! If not actually required, probably need at least some
>> reference to it; such as "Be part of the yearly Simultaneous Release (or,
>> clearly compatible with it)".
>>
>> Just a suggestion.
_______________________________________________
cbi-dev mailing list
cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev
