Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion

Even if you’re a project that does get removed, you can still release on the same day. Other than getting your bits mentioned in an over crowded update site, it’s not overly obvious what the benefits of being in the simultaneous release trains are at the moment. I know the only thing the CDT community cares about is having the same release date. So I’m not sure we’d want to pull that card yet. The whole house could come down.


And in my mind that’s the real problem with the RC. Their influence in the day to day operations of Eclipse projects isn’t very strong. Given that committers are the only ones that have power on the projects, the RC needs to do a better job of influencing them, or just forget about it.


BTW, I won’t be at the planning council meeting.


Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead,

From: [] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:29 AM
Subject: [] A suggested topic for Planning Council Discussion


I've added the following item to the discussion section of our Agenda for next week.
I am not saying I don't trust "the EMO" to make the right decision :)
but if we are a simultaneous release "by and for the people", to borrow a phrase,
I wonder if we, the Planning Council, should police ourselves:

  • Enforcement:

A line in Ganymede plan says "Unlike the somewhat lax enforcement of previous years, the EMO will remove projects that do not meet the required constraints."

Since such issues often involve a cost-benefit analysis or trade off, I suggest we build-in a Planning Council mechanism that allows for reasonable exceptions. Besides allowing for those reasonable exceptions, this might help avoid being too cautious on saying what is "required". For example, my suggested wording would be, "If projects do not meet the required constraints, they will be removed from the Ganymede release unless
1.        The project applies for an exception that is reviewed and approved by majority vote of the Planning Council (that is, majority vote with no substantial objections).
2.        The project has a plan for rectifying the noncompliant item by the next coordinated yearly release. Exceptions can not be granted two years in a row -- either compliance will be achieved, or the rule changed.

Thought I'd post this now, so some thought/discussion could take place beforehand. Maybe there is some reason it _has_ to be the EMO for some reason that I am not aware of?


Back to the top