|Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Eclipse Development Process 2018|
Project Lead: Since a Project Lead technically leads the Committers, lead should be a Committer. We should make it explicit. What happens when a project has only 1 committer?
Exception 3: I feel that the release naming convention is placed incorrectly. It should be a sub-point, may be called as Release naming convention. Also, I presume milestones can be labeled as x.y-Mn or x.y.z.Mn. If they are not allowed, then we should mention that explicitly.
Milestones are to be labeled x.yMz, e.g., 2.3M1 (milestone 1 towards version 2.3), 2.3M2 (milestone 2 towards version 2.3), etc. Release candidates are to be labeled x.yRCz, e.g., 2.3RC1 (release candidate 1 towards version 2.3). Official releases are the only downloads allowed to be labeled with x.y, e.g., 0.5, 1.0, 2.3, etc.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
See http://www.gs.com/disclaimer/global_email for important risk disclosures, conflicts of interest and other terms and conditions relating to this e-mail and your reliance on information contained in it. This message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this message. See http://www.gs.com/disclaimer/email for further information on confidentiality and the risks of non-secure electronic communication. If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you.
From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
Greetings Architecture Council.
Please see attached the most recent version of the updates to the EDP for 2018. I've used a little diff wizardry to produce a "redline" document that shows the changes. The diff is a bit wonky in places, but I believe that it gets the point across.
I have a one-liner that I'm going to apply to apply pseudo-legal capitalization to the defined terms in the document (e.g. "Release Review" in all occurrences instead of "release review"). I haven't applied that yet.
Also, the diff had real trouble with the diagram change that I added, so diffs aren't properly highlighted on the second diagram. I will likely replace the first diagram with something that's more consistent with the way the second diagram (and the diagrams in the handbook) are rendered.
The source is all here.
I have two (fundamental) definitions that I'm struggling with. Any help that you can provide will be appreciated.
The definition of Release in particular feels more cumbersome than it needs to be. Note that these definitions don't necessarily need to be complete: the rest of the document fills in the details. I'm really just looking for a once-sentence definition.
Note that the EDP itself should be agnostic of any specific technology, or notion that the EDP is specifically about "software" (e.g. specifications are not software).
I'm also thinking of adding "Adopter" and "User" as terms.
Comments welcome. Random thoughts that might spur conversation that leads to valuable changes are also welcome.
I intend to push out an update on Monday afternoon that includes the pseudo-legal capitalization, updated project structure diagram, and other minor tweaks after I make another pass. My hope is to push out a final draft on Wednesday.
Please provide any feedback or concerns as soon as possible. In order to get this in front of the Board of Directors for approval, we'll need to vote on it during our meeting at EclipseCon Europe next week. If you can't attend the conference, please let us know of any concerns
Your Personal Data: We may collect and process information about you that may be subject to data protection laws. For more information about how we use and disclose your personal data, how we protect your information, our legal basis to use your information, your rights and who you can contact, please refer to: www.gs.com/privacy-notices
Back to the top