Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Notes from today's PC meeting, 10/5/2

[David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxx>]

   Doug, can you comment if you are still willing to lead an effort to
decide and describe exactly what it means to require the ability to
"update" across yearly releases? (You volunteered last June ... maybe
you could report on how that is going?

I volunteer because we have the requirement from our customers of QNX
Momentics. We test upgrading from one release to the next and report any
errors we find. So far, we haven¹t seen any with Neon.

Thanks, Doug. That is good to hear.

But what we need, before we require it of all projects, goes beyond any one specific case.

We need to specify the specific actions that are required so the projects can plan for the extra work.

If we can not do that then we can not make it a "requirement". That would sort of be like saying "high quality" is a requirement, without saying specifically what we meant by "high quality". That is, it could mean anything, and in practice would mean almost nothing; nothing would be enforceable or testable; we could not say if a bug was valid or not with out a more specific definition. I assume you know all of that but I just repeat it here to better understand if *that* is the effort you agreed to lead? If not, that is fine. But then we will need to find someone else to do it or not make it a requirement. That is why I'm asking.

Thanks for listening,