Do you intentionnally want to use the old builder for this release?
I think a new release is a great opportunity to switch to more
modern infrastructure, and that we should drop the old builder and
use the Tycho-based one. Otherwise we'll have to maintain the old
builder for all the 2.4.x stream, and I think it is very
time-consuming for low return on investment.
I think that we'd better just rename the exact bits we
have made available in June and which had been tested since, rather than create a new build by whatever means.
Also to my understanding, switching the build procedure might be considered as a violation of Ramp Down policy.
I don't see why it would require us
to maintain the old builder for the whole 2.4.x stream. If we can switch
it after RC2 we probably can as well switch it for later releases we
don't yet have prepared RCs for.
However, I don't have any reasons to specifically prefer old releng to the new one, rather the opposite :). So if it is allowed and considered as safe by everyone, I have absolutely no objections on doing that for 2.4.
Artem & Anthony, could you please advice on that?
it is worth mentionning it in the release review. in the "Non-Code Aspects".
Sure, I have corrected the Non-Code Aspects section of review.
Do you intentionnally want to use the old builder for this release?
I think a new release is a great opportunity to switch to more
modern infrastructure, and that we should drop the old builder and
use the Tycho-based one. Otherwise we'll have to maintain the old
builder for all the 2.4.x stream, and I think it is very
time-consuming for low return on investment.
IMHO, Using Tycho and building on Hudson.eclipse.org makes the
project more healthy. If we use it, it is worth mentionning it in
the release review. in the "Non-Code Aspects".
According to what I could read on the cross-project mailing list, it
is way too late to join Indigo RC1. I am not sure it is possible to
join SR2 since we did not get GMF-Tooling into Indigo. Joining SR2
is an operation that probably request approval from Architecture
Council, so that you should ask about it on cross-project mailing
list.
Regards
On 07/09/2011 08:15, Michael Golubev wrote:
Artem, Anthony
Could you please approve promoting the S201106290629 build
(2.4.0RC2) [1] of GMF-Tooling into the 2.4.0 release.
A release review draft is available at the Wiki [2], also I
am not sure what kind of additional adjustments has to be made
now when we missed the Indigo.
Artem, please feel free to correct me anywhere in the
draft.
An approved IP Log had been posted to this newsgroup at the
end of July [3] and is also available in the CVS at [4].
We would also like to participate in the Indigo SR1
simultaneous release, do you think it is possible at this
stage?
