Strong +1 on a common build infrastructure. I would go further
by saying that build counts as infrastructure, and the foundation should staff
a position for this role.
I think we should get a comment from Oisin on whether he intends
to get the STP bits signed or not. Then we can talk about either
granting a dispensation or throwing STP from the train. (Oisin: I prefer dark
chocolate from Europe.)
It’s good to discuss this now, and Bjorn was right to bring it
up before the final drop.
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
Merks
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:44 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Cc: Cross project issues; eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer asks a question about STP...
Bjorn,
It seems to me that STP's +3 bits aren't due until the 18th. Could we just say
that if those bits aren't signed at that time, then they won't be in the final
bits? Or is there some reason we have to decide earlier than that? I know from
chatting with Oisin that he's scrambling trying to get builds done with
glitches in Buckminster that's leaving him with a manual task. And Nick is
trying to help him as I type this note...
<pointless-rambling>
I've never quite understood why it's so important to everyone that everyone
else sign all their bits. But then I've not spent a lot of time trying to
understand it, and we did all agree to it, so I suppose it's pointless to ask
why it's so important. The must do's did state that exceptions could be
granted. Kind of like dispensations. Maybe if STP bought chocolate for all the
other islanders we'd be inclined to vote more favorably...
</pointless-rambling>
<rant>
Of course this whole issue highlights a more fundamental problem, and that's
the huge investment that goes into making all these darned builds work. All
this release engineering stuff is a full time job for Nick. By the time we add
up all the releng support that goes into Ganymede, and consider how much
overlap there is in the various tasks, you've got to think there must be a more
productive way to make this happen. I mean for goodness sake, this is an open
source community, surely we can do a better job on the infrastructure front
given the resources are being poured in already anyway...
</rant>
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
Bjorn
Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Bjorn
Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/11/2008 01:58
PM
Please respond to
"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|

To
|

"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|

cc
|

|

Subject
|

Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn
"Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer asks a question about STP...
|
|
Mitch,
I
think we should give them more time.
How much time? The final
release bits are supposed to be built on Friday. And that assumes that there
has been integration testing, etc. all along through the RC process... Don't
get me wrong, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just asking the perfectly
practical questions: how much slippage is the team willing to allow STP? Are we
going to slip the whole Ganymede? Are we going to rebuild the whole Ganymede 48
hours before the big launch to accommodate STP? What are the constraints?
- Bjorn
--
[end of message] _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you
must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.