|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Kepler dates, IP Logs, and reviews|
What has happened to the old (very good) IP tool?
It gave me a good auto-generated log for MDT/OCL that I could easily review.
http://eclipse.org/projects/tools/ip_contribution_review.php is hard to find (no link from portal or project page) and gives me a list of over 600 bugs to review. No way. There have been zero IP contributions so I expect to do the job in 10 minutes not 10 hours.
If there really is a change in diligence then please threshold it at resolution after Juno, since all pre-Juno bugs have been IP logged and approved.
On 26/04/2013 19:24, The Eclipse Foundation wrote:
Kepler approaches. |
I'm starting to get IP Log review requests for the upcoming release. In at least two cases, I'm pretty sure that the submitter thought that the release date was in May. To be clear, here are the dates:
May 24/2013 - Deadline to submit IP Logs for Kepler releases
June 5/2013 - PMC-approved Review materials submitted to EMO
June 12/2013 - Kepler Uber Release review
June 26/2013 - Kepler release
The IP Logs are not due for another month. It's still a little early, but it's perfectly acceptable to submit your IP log for review in advance of the actual required-by date. Just keep in mind that the log needs to accurately reflect the content that you're releasing; if you anticipate receiving any contributions from folks who are not committers, it might be a good idea to hold off for a while.
While I'm at it, I'd like to make a plea to everybody to please try and honour the dates specified. There are a few projects that make a habit of submitting the required materials late; this causes a lot of stress for everybody involved. If you haven't started thinking about your IP Log and review documentation, now might be a good time to do so.
I need to have you PMC-approved review documentation before EOB on June 5/2013. You can either do what we've been doing for years and submit this information as a presentation, document, PDF, or whatever. Or you can just enter review information directly in the release record in the Project Management Infrastructure. A few of you have already started doing the latter; my sense is that it is an easy way to assemble and provide this information. Please let me know if you think otherwise, or if there is anything that we can do to improve it.
The PMC approval part is important. Get it approved. This may take some time. Plan to engage your PMC at least a full week in advance of the June 5 deadline. PMC members, please make sure that the document is complete and that you are satisfied with its content before providing your approval. When I look at the extremely short (or non-existent) "outside contributions" sections on some IP logs, I grow concerned that some projects aren't doing enough to court the community and grow diversity.
Please use the Release Review checklist to make sure that you've done all the necessary bits:
Note that this checklist has been around for a long time. There should be nothing new or surprising here.
I've noticed that a lot of projects do not have plans posted. This is an important and necessary part of the development process. Plan information can be entered directly in the release record in the Project Management Infrastructure. Providing a project plan in a standard format is required. Wrestling with XML is no longer required. It's easy. Please make this happen.
Note that planning should happen at the beginning of a release cycle. PMC's, please impress the importance of this on your projects.
Wayne Beaton on behalf of the Eclipse Foundation