A couple more
follow-on comments <tyler2>
Release
Train
Each project is assigned a "offset" number which is the number of
weeks their milestone dates are offset from the Platform dates. Thus BIRT,
being a +1 project, has milestone dates of M2 = Sep 30, M3 = Nov 11, M4 = Dec
23, etc. These offsets will (obviously) be reduced over the end-game until they
all reach zero.
<tyler> Above you indicate BIRT is +1
project, but below indicate +2. TPTP is actually a max(EMF,BIRT)+1
project since we will be dependent on EMF and BIRT finalizing their GAs before
we can. Hence, if BIRT is truly +2 as indicated below, TPTP would be
+3.</tyler>
<KH> Not sure if this is a comment
about the 3.2 development milestones or the shutdown sequence to GA. During
development I would prefer to have as short a cycle as possible between
milestone builds. I am hoping we can hold to a 2 week lag. See next section for
GA shutdown</KH>
<tyler2>Correct,
during development, our builds are much closer together (within days) –
it’s just the shutdown </tyler2>
Note that participation in this initial train is limited - not everyone
who wants to join will be able to join this year. Assuming success, the process
will be opened to additional projects next year. Also note that if a project
falls behind the train schedule, it will be dropped - we will not slip the
train. A third note: any project that has not synchronized by M5 is off the
train for this year.
<tyler>
I’m still not clear about what projects get from “being on the
train” (vs. simply coordinating their releases with the Eclipse Platform,
i.e., arriving at the station at the same time on another train J). I thought there
was some discussion about packaging releases together at each
milestone/release, which would provide some benefit, but I’m not sure if
that is really envisioned and I didn’t see anything to that effect
articulated in the minutes. I know our intent is to align with the
Eclipse Platform milestones to best enable consumers of our project, but
I’m not clear in my understanding of the ability to “join the train”
and the impact of “falling off the train” (is that like falling off
the wagon? J). </tyler>
<KH> My recollection was there was
agreement in the concept of having coordinated development milestones and
making it easier for our community to consume these builds. We identified a
range of dates that had the earliest possible date for staged milestone builds
at the beginning of November and the last possible date to start creating
staged milestones in Feb '06 (ie. if we can't get staged builds worked
out by Feb there is no chance for a coordinated June GA). Projects like
WTP and TPTP were not able to commit at the meeting to being able to do this on
a 3.2 stream this fall as they already had release commitments. </KH>
<tyler2>This one still eludes
me. I understand the reasons for aligning builds/milestones. What I
don’t get are comments like “participation is limited,” “not
everyone will be able to join,” and “if not synchronized by M5 it’s
off the train.” What will be different for a project if (a) they “decline”
to get on the train, but irregardless coordinate builds/milestones with 3.2 vs.
(b) if a project accepts to join the train and does the same thing? Or,
perhaps appropriately, if a project falls behinds, but later catches up, why
are they “off the train for the year”? If the train is just a
series of coordinated milestones, I don’t understand the restrictions to
joining and rejoining.</tyler2>
