OK this is my bad for misunderstanding the purpose and scope of the release review. I could of sworn I scheduled the 6.0.0 release review a while back. Too many reviews to schedule too little time!
Not sure if I can +1 on behalf of PMC but if I can +1
Steve
From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of EMO EMO
Sent: 04 December 2020 20:50
To: EE4J PMC Discussions <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] Release Review Approval for HK2 3.0.0
If I'd made the connection earlier, I'd have strongly encouraged the Eclipse GlassFish project to engage in the release review a few weeks ago. As it is, at this moment, I've only had the project team engage in a release review for the
"Shoal" component. It looks like we've collectively dropped the ball on everything else.
I think that we're trying to couple release and release reviews too tightly. The intention of the release review is to validate that the project is operating and a good open source citizen, is correctly engaging in the intellectual property
due diligence process, and is otherwise correctly implementing the Eclipse Development Process. Like I said, for regular old open source (not specification) projects, the project team can push out their releases for a full year following a successful release
review. Following a successful release review, project artifacts can be staged in whatever order they need to be staged.
So, following successful reviews, the Eclipse GlassFish project can release their HK2 component. Since the Eclipse OpenMQ project has engaged in a successful release review, they can also release their dependent components whenever they
are ready to do so. If, six months from now, there is some need to push out another release of HK2, no additional review is required, since the review that we would have completed now is still good six months from now.
IP Log reviews are engaged at a project level (i.e., the IP Log reports on all intellectual property in the project, irrespective of any component designation; again, the EDP has no formal notion of component). So, the IP Log that I approved
for GlassFish Shoal is valid for all of Eclipse GlassFish.
I believe that we can reasonably assert that the required week of community review has occurred, in that anybody who is paying even half attention should know full well that this is coming and has had ample opportunity to express concerns.
So, the short version is that I think that we're good-to-go. With the PMC's approval of the release and corresponding
release documentation, I'm prepare to declare the release review for Eclipse GlassFish 6.0 successful. In fact, as soon as you see the PMC's +1, just assume that the review is
successful and I'll adjust the release date accordingly.
PMC, can I get a +1 to complete the GlassFish 6.0 release?
I'm thinking that we get the project team to change the description of the
Eclipse Glassfish 6.0 release to include a list of the components and respective versions
In this case the problem is that HK2 has been grouped under the GlassFish project, but it's an independent component on which OpenMQ depends as well.
GlassFish depends on OpenMQ. So that makes it so we should release HK2 first, then OpenMQ, then GlassFish.
The problem with the 9th is that the plan was to have GlassFish available at the Jakarta livestream, which is at 8 December.
So 6 or at the latest the 7th should work much better.
--
The Eclipse Management Organization
Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
--
The Eclipse Management Organization
Eclipse Foundation
|
