Hi
I think a certain amount of self-policing is possible for the many
'minor' projects. Their consumers are surely well aware how stable
builds are and how much credible development is going on. Concerned
projects should perhaps contact the EMO at M6 to complain about the
lack of M4 project plan and request a firm commitment to either a
frozen/point/minor/major release.
For 'major' projects I'm not sure what can be done. Surely EGIT has
enough experienced committers to know that a major new release at
SR2 RC3 is not the way maintenance is done? Perhaps the EMO should
enforce only PMC-approved major or point version changes after M6,
and AB-approved after M7. NB thais includes SR1 and SR2 that should
be maintence. If there is a new release it is new not maintenance.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 11/06/2013 18:33, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
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
![EclipseCon France 2013]()
____________ _________________________ __________
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
![EclipseCon France 2013]()
_________________________ ______________________
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
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6402 - Release Date:
06/11/13
|
