User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
Wayne,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the new bits being contributed
are just a service release then no review is required, only the
release record, correct?
On 09.02.2020 18:15, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
Updating to the EPL-2.0 (and, by extension, the SUA
2.0) is not a simultaneous release participation requirement,
it's a general requirement.
I haven't been as noisy as I should have been on this
forum. Instead, I've been working with individual projects as
they engage in the release process. I'd hoped that we'd have
picked up everybody by now, but that clearly hasn't happened:
either I've missed doing this for some projects, neglected to
follow up, or those projects simply haven't engaged in a
release review in a while. There has been plenty of noise
about this, but certainly not enough on this channel. I'll
change that.
I'll backpedal a bit then... if it is possible for this
release to update from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 (without adding risk
to your release), then please do so. If not, add it as a plan
item for your next release. If your project is not planning
any releases and is still using EPL-1.0, please plan a service
release for 2020-06 with the license upgrade.
While have your attention, I'll reinforce...
If you are adding new bits to 2020-03, you need to create a
release record for that new release. If you have not engaged
in a release review within a year of the release date, you
need to schedule a release review. If you have engaged in a
successful release review within one year of your release
date, then you do not have to engage in a release review or
submit your IP Log for review. If you are not sure whether or
not your intellectual property is being properly tracked, go
ahead and submit your IP Log and I'll have a look.
Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation
requirement? It seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have.
At this point I would just be happy if there were no
corrupted variants of SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:
The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365
features using SUA 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before
the 2020-03 release, without introducing new errors, seem
beyond remote to me.
All,
Note that not only were the two license problems above
not fixed for M2, the signing problems were also not
fixed:
Of course this is only the case after waiting some
minutes for the workspace dialog prompt, hoping my
computer doesn't catch on fire in the process, and then
waiting another minute for the IDE actually rear its ugly
head.
At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:
Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will
always create a new one:
org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property
tester contributes a property
org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to type class
org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry
Regards,
Ed
On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Hey folks!
Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release.
I'll be assembling the project participation
information shortly.
If you are planning to contribute new bits to the
2020-03 simultaneous release, and have not already
done so, please create a release record as soon as
possible. It'll be much easier for everybody
(especially me) if you can get this done before I
start assembling the participation list (if the
information is there, then it will be far more likely
that I get it right the first time and we can avoid
the back-and-forth of fixing things after the fact).
There is help in the handbook.
Please make sure that your content has the latest
SUA and that, if your project is currently using the
EPL-1.0, you update to the EPL-2.0. If you need help
with this, please let me know (there's a lot of useful
information for this on Bug 530393).
You need only engage in a release review if you
have not done so with one year of your release date.
If you do need to engage in a release review, please
engage in the workflow at your earliest convenience.
The IP Log submission deadline is February 28/2020
(M3).
Note that, whether or not you engage in a release
review, you are required to implement the IP Policy at
all times. Further, it is a simultaneous release
requirement that all third party content be consumed
through Eclipse Orbit.
The IP Policy was updated in the fall. In practical
terms for simultaneous release participants, this
means that you no longer need to create piggyback CQs.
There's more background in a Reviewing
Third Party Content blog post. More information
regarding how our processes are being updated will be
coming shortly.
You have likely heard that the Eclipse Planning
Council was removed from the Bylaws of the Eclipse
Foundation. This does not mean that the Planning
Council no longer exists, only that it is no longer
governed directly by the bylaws. The Planning Council
is still very much the primary authority with regard
to oversight of the simultaneous release.
Thanks,
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.