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
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
On 26/04/2013 19:24, The Eclipse Foundation wrote:
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
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. PMCs, please impress the importance of this on your
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6275 - Release Date: