Just musing here, and this is something for the postmortem, but...
I think we need to have some sort of heartbeat monitor on all
participating projects. Several projects disappeared or were
unresponsive at certain points through the release. I don't think
it's unreasonable to have every participating project check in on
all milestone dates. Does that seem reasonable?
Perhaps with Luna, we can ask the PMCs to report on the
liveliness/preparedness of their projects with each milestone? I'm
thinking a simple go/no-go status. If it makes it easier to track,
we can open the release tracking bugs much earlier in the process.
Thoughts?
Also... I believe that most project plans were created in the last
two weeks. This is unacceptable. A project plan needs to be
established early in the release cycle. It can change; it can as
simple as a single "we're just fixing bugs" theme. But it needs to
exist and it needs to have some sort of value. Plans can (and do)
change during a release cycle. If there is anything that we can do
with the PMI to make this easier, please let me know (open bugs
against "Community/Project Management & Portal"). Making clones
of release records (including plan and review documentation) is
already on my list (Bug 410512).
Wayne
On 06/11/2013 05:37 AM, Benjamin Cabé
wrote:
Hello,
We are in the process of making a last minute build of Lua
Development Tools against DLTK 5 and therefore there should be
no showstopper for RC4. This is very unfortunate though, and
is costing us lots of efforts to validate the product against
this new major version, while we deliberately used the last
couple weeks to stabilize and validate it.
I would like to re-iterate that it's really not acceptable
on the long run to rely on a framework that shipped its p2
repo (and contribution to Kepler) for the first time of the
release train on June
6. Also, it is really unclear when one should expect
milestones from DLTK, since I don't think a project plan is
actually maintained by the project (?)
Thank you,
I recall the planning
council recently decided on a policy that we would not
allow a new release of a project to appear for the first
time after RC1. Am I remembering that incorrectly? This
is exactly the kind of last minute change that caused
trouble for the release train in Juno SR2. I think at
this point they should be contributing the same release
that was contributed in RC1, which sounds like 4.0.
John
From:
David M
Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross project
issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
06/07/2013
09:52 AM
Subject:
Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Missing release information
for some Kepler projects
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I agree its "not cool". I
do not know their reasons for it. I do recall them
sending a note a month or two ago "asking for
preferences" ... so suggest you and DLTK project work
out which is best (for you to move to 5.x or them to
revert to 4.x). There should only be one version major
version in the common repository.
Good luck,
From: Benjamin
Cabé <bcabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross
project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 06/07/2013
09:40 AM
Subject: Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Missing release information
for some Kepler projects
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
Contributing DLTK 5.0 and removing 4.0 at the very last
minute (RC3) to the Kepler repo with no previous
contribution before that would have allowed Koneki Lua
Development Tools to be tested against it, is not really
cool to say the least. LDT contribution to Kepler is now
broken. Any chance to also include DLTK 4.0 into the
Kepler repo?
Thanks.
Benjamin--
De : Alexey Panchenko <alex.panchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Répondre à : Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date : jeudi 9 mai 2013 17:49
À : Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Missing
release information for some Kepler projects
Hi,
Unfortunately The DLTK team were quite busy this year
with other projects. Initially the previous (4.0,
released 2012) version was added to Kepler, with the
intent to replace it later with the 5.0 builds from
master. So far, that did not happen yet, partly because
of source control (-> git) & build system (->
tycho) changes.
AFAIK DLTK is used by PDT and Koneki-Lua Development
Tools.
So the question to these projects: what DLTK version
would you prefer in Kepler?
Regards,
Alex
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am now only missing the information for the DLTK and
Runtime Packaging (RTP) project. I have contacted DLTK
via their mailing list; Ian has contacted the RTP
project leaders directly (thanks, Ian).
I noticed that DLTK is contributing their 4.0 release
build (from Juno) to Kepler, despite there being some
apparent activity in the project Git repositories. I
don't know if there is any specific issue with this, but
thought that I'd point it out in case any downstream
consumers had any concerns/issues.
Thanks,
Wayne
On 04/26/2013 02:38 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
I am missing release information for the following
projects that have declared intent to participate in
Kepler.
C/C++ Development Tools (CDT)
Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK)
Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF)
Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF)
Runtime Packaging Project (RTP)
EclipseLink
Ecore Tools
Extended Editing Framework (EEF)
Jubula Functional Testing Tool
MDT XSD (XML Schema Definition)
Maven Integration for Web Tools Platform
SCA Tools
In some cases, it may be that I just can't sort out what
release you want to include, or maybe you're planning to
include a release that does not occur on the Kepler
release date (which I find weird, but is otherwise
okay).
If you have not done so already, please visit your
project's information page and create a release record
for Kepler and then please let me know either on this
list or via direct email so that I can update the Kepler
release page.
I will not accept review documentation for any release
that is not recorded in the project metadata.
While you're there, please take a few minutes to update
the description and plan information for your release.
The description should be a short paragraph that
concisely describes the high points of the release. Note
that you can still use the old XML-file based plan
format if you like using old and painful technology.
You can quickly get access to your project's information
page directly from the Kepler release page:
https://projects.eclipse.org/releases/kepler
Let me know if you require any assistance.
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse
Projects
____________ _________________________ __________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse
Projects
_________________________ ______________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_________________ _________________________ _____
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
[attachment "480x60.png" deleted by David M
Williams/Raleigh/IBM] [attachment "ATT00001.png" deleted
by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM]
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|