[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer asks a question about STP...
|
<+1 ref="rant"/>
Ok. I'm a C++ guy and that's probably not valid XML. But, yes, it would
be awesome to have a single build of Ganymede bits, all of them, done in
a single pass, by a single build machine.
Doug.
________________________________
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
Merks
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:44 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Cc: Cross project issues;
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re:
[eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer
asks a question about STP...
Bjorn,
It seems to me that STP's +3 bits aren't due until the 18th.
Could we just say that if those bits aren't signed at that time, then
they won't be in the final bits? Or is there some reason we have to
decide earlier than that? I know from chatting with Oisin that he's
scrambling trying to get builds done with glitches in Buckminster that's
leaving him with a manual task. And Nick is trying to help him as I type
this note...
<pointless-rambling>
I've never quite understood why it's so important to everyone
that everyone else sign all their bits. But then I've not spent a lot of
time trying to understand it, and we did all agree to it, so I suppose
it's pointless to ask why it's so important. The must do's did state
that exceptions could be granted. Kind of like dispensations. Maybe if
STP bought chocolate for all the other islanders we'd be inclined to
vote more favorably...
</pointless-rambling>
<rant>
Of course this whole issue highlights a more fundamental
problem, and that's the huge investment that goes into making all these
darned builds work. All this release engineering stuff is a full time
job for Nick. By the time we add up all the releng support that goes
into Ganymede, and consider how much overlap there is in the various
tasks, you've got to think there must be a more productive way to make
this happen. I mean for goodness sake, this is an open source community,
surely we can do a better job on the infrastructure front given the
resources are being poured in already anyway...
</rant>
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Bjorn Freeman-Benson
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/11/2008 01:58 PM
Please respond to
"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede
Enforcer asks a question about STP...
Mitch,
I think we should give them more time.
How much time? The final release bits are supposed to be built
on Friday. And that assumes that there has been integration testing,
etc. all along through the RC process... Don't get me wrong, I'm not
trying to be mean, I'm just asking the perfectly practical questions:
how much slippage is the team willing to allow STP? Are we going to slip
the whole Ganymede? Are we going to rebuild the whole Ganymede 48 hours
before the big launch to accommodate STP? What are the constraints?
- Bjorn
--
[end of message] _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
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.

