Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Feedback on LTS slide presentation ...
Good point, David.
In fact on slide 7 the color is green / red, it might make sense to re-use the same color.
I'm still not quite clear who's allowed to download and use the LTS binary bits.
On governance it seems to suggest that access is limited to LTS members (at least participating).
But then every project committer is allowed to commit into the LTS forge ?
So every committer must be granted download rights or they can't test it?
Do you think about a license that limits the right to redistribute LTS binary bits only for participating members ?
And, what if a member stops participating after a while ... would that void the member's license to redistribute bits he has participated in in creating in an earlier year ?
Similar question for VLTS. If access and governance for VLTS is the same as for LTS I'd suggest using the same color as for LTS in the slide, just longer.
Otherwise explain what governs access to VLTS versus LTS (an extra fee?)
From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Ross
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Feedback on LTS slide presentation ...
Thank you for the feedback David, that's a good idea and makes a lot of sense. It is one release with the LTS phase starting after SR2. I'll illustrate it that way. Similar for VLTS, it makes sense to show the VLTS time period after the LTS phase ends.
And thanks Kim for the correction for 4.2 builds.
On 01/12/2012 12:32 PM, David M Williams wrote:
> Thought I'd give a little feedback, or question?, about part of the
> presentation; this has to do with slide 9 that was presented during
> meeting, LTS Cadence.
> I am not sure if it is simply a suggestion about visuals or, if I am
> confused on the concept [and, apologies in advance if this was
> discussed, and I missed it].
> The slide shows green bars for "regular" and blue bars for "LTS" in
> alternating years. I would think it would be clearer if there was a
> green bar every year, for the regular release, and then every other
> year extend the bar with blue representing the LTS phase. That is, I am assuming ...
> and this is where I might have missed a conceptual point ... the LTS
> would start after SR2 of a regular release. If that is not the case,
> and LTS starts immediately after a release and may or may not match up
> with SR1 and SR2, then I'd draw two bars, one green, one blue, showing
> that for a period of time there would essentially be two versions, one
> regular, one LTS. I'm not sure what is intended in this regard, but in
> either case think the visual could be improved ... and again,
> apologies if it was clarified in the meeting and I just missed it.
> Thanks for the presentation, Andrew.
> From: "Oberhuber, Martin"<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx"
> <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Ross
> Date: 01/12/2012 12:12 PM
> Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] 12-Jan AC Meeting Notes
> Sent by: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi all,
> Notes of the meeting we just had are now posted:
> Many thanks to Andrew Ross for filling us in on the current state of
> the Eclipse Long-Term Support initiative, and McQ for the short but
> very valuable update on 4.x.
> I hope I captured the essence of what was discussed – if not it’s a
> Wiki so feel free to edit (I’m watching edits).
> Andrew, could you propose a slot for when you could host the LTS
> follow-up Q&A session that we agreed on ?
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.