Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [WARNING] SimRel Headed Off the Tracks


The only good way to report a bad state is to fail the build so it doesn't pass review.

That is exactly what I had in mind.

Given Alexander’s arguments, I stand corrected: "release early, release often". For GEF, automation of the process will be advanced further. I want to contribute a newer version only when it adds value.

The only issue I have with the current release process is deciding beforehand what version will be contributed. Maybe I am misunderstanding something about the process, though.

Best regards,

Matthias Wienand
B.Sc. Softwaretechnik
Software Engineer

Telefon: +49 231 9860 202
Telefax: +49 231 9860 211
Mobil:   +49 176 248 950 82


itemis AG

Niederlassung Lünen
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen

Rechtlicher Hinweis:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Abdelghani El-Kacimi
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino

Am 29.01.2020 um 10:58 schrieb Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Matthias Wienand <matthias.wienand@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,

+1 for going back to annual releases.

Projects are not forced to do quarterly releases. You can have your project do a yearly release, but it just means that since Platform releases every 3 months, you need to check your project against 2 milestones and 2 RCs of the Platform every 3 months (12 times a year). Which doesn't change much compared to previous state where projects were supposed to be tested against all Platform milestones and RC, ie 11 times a year.\

The work done by Ed M is very appreciated. Ideally, the different checks (e.g. licenses) could be automated to prevent degradation of SimRel quality.

Some checks have already been possible to automate for a while:
The licence check may be missing, and could be added.
Or one can probably just build a similar Maven configuration to run the other analyzers.
But the real thing is that what matters is not building the report, but enforcing rules without human intervention. This typically happens only with mechanism that fail the build in case the analyzers see issue. As long as human reading is required, it cost too much effort and time to someone, and feedback loop becomes too long. The only good way to report a bad state is to fail the build so it doesn't pass review.
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top