Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Platfo

["Nick Boldt" <codeslave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Damn, fatfingered.

Given EclipseCON is Mar 17, we could delay M5 by a week or two and
still be done in time.

Good idea/bad idea?

Nick

On 9/27/07, Nick Boldt <codeslave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, as to communication, there's the outstanding (in both senses of the
> word!) request for per-project notifications when the Euro/Gany builds fail,
> but that's not going to exist until Gany starts up.
>
> Unfortuntely, EuroWM and GanyM5 are scheduled for about the same time in
> February. Should we change that? M5(a) week is always a fun time without the
> added pressure of a second maintenance train release the same week. Given
> EclipseCON is
>
> Nick
>
>
> On 9/27/07, Kim Moir <Kim_Moir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +1  to a reasonable schedule!
> >
> > Another thing that would have helped out a great deal during the fall
> maintenance release would be better communication and  more frequent builds.
> >
> > For instance, last week, there were failed builds several nights in a row.
>  If a build fails, the team in question should fix the issue and request an
> immediate respin.  Otherwise there's too much time between builds and they
> are never green.
> >
> > As for communication, there were many questions sent to the lists
> regarding the schedule.  If the Europa status were sent out regularly and
> also noted the upcoming tasks required to hit the release dates,  a lot of
> unnecessary email could have been avoided.  Yes, it is available on the wiki
> but the reality is that everyone is busy and forgets to check it.
> >
> > Kim
> >
> >
> >
> > In order to alleviate confusion next time around (February 25-29) and
> > build in the server freeze time / EPP build time, we should really
> > work out a better schedule for Europa Winter Maintenance.
> >
> > Here's what's in the wiki now -- note that EPP is not listed and +2 is
> > the same day as the release, just like this week has been:
> >
> > Europa  +0      +1      +2      Release
> > Winter  02/25   02/27   02/29   02/29
> >
> > But for Ganymede, there's a 2-day lag for EPP and another
> > 2-day+weekend lag for the release:
> >
> > Ganymd  +0      +1      +2      EPP     Release
> > M2      09/21   09/26   10/03   10/05   10/09
> > M3      11/02   11/07   11/14   11/16   11/20
> > M4      12/14   12/19   01/06   01/08   01/11
> > M5      02/08   02/13   02/20   02/22   02/26
> >
> > So, here's my suggestion. Please chime in if it's impossible or you
> > disagree. Silence will be considered agreement. In a week I'll update
> > the wiki if there's quorum.
> >
> > Europa  +0      +1      +2      EPP      Release
> > Winter  02/18   02/20   02/25   02/27      02/29
> >
> > --
> >
> > On a related topic, please note that +2 (in my suggestion above) gets
> > more time than +1 because +2 is actually +2-to-9. IMHO, we really
> > ought to have more steps between +0 and Release -- I'd like to see at
> > least +3 and +4 added, but that's another issue for another email. If
> > anyone else feels this way too (eg., TPTP (3 dependents?) == +3, GMF
> > (8 dependents) & UML2 Tools (9 dependents) == +4) please open a new
> > discussion thread in this mailing list to cite your reasons why
> > meeting the +2 definition (and therefore schedule) is increasingly
> > difficult as the stack gets deeper.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Nick
> >
>