Ed,
Comments below.
On 12/06/2013 5:54 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Ed
If we have a policy we should stick to it.
That's generally the best policy...
If the policy is no longer in force, where is the notification, where is the replacement?
Yes, we'll need to document something.
When the policy was written, there was presumably a concern to minimize the risk of problems during rampdown. I don't see why this concern has changed.
I've never personally had this concern and generally approve whatever project leads think is best.
Committers working on a project inevitably have a very subjective view of how to proceed.
Indeed, but they're also the people most knowledgeable about how best to proceed.
Requiring the external approval has two benefits:
a) the threat of a review makes the committers think much harder about whether it is necessary and check their changes more thoroughly
I wouldn't presume to question Sven's carefulness.
b) the external review should be objective and so provides a better judgement on the balance of risks
I know Sven to be a well balanced person. I don't know any project leads who don't take pride in the quality of what's being release and take personal responsibility for their decisions. The thread of doing something stupid that everyone notices is, in my opinion, in and of itself sufficient deterrent.
I committed several fixes myself in the last weeks (and days) without seeking PMC approval. I presume others are doing the same, i.e., using their informed best (albeit subjective) judgement.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 12/06/2013 16:27, Ed Merks wrote:
FYI,
I trust that project leads generally know what's best for their projects and for their downstream users, so I see no general need to police or review their decisions.
Regards,
Ed
On 12/06/2013 12:42 PM, Sven Efftinge wrote:
Ed,
comments inline
On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doesn't it need PMC approvals before being resolved as fixed?
No, we don't follow that policy anymore.
From the yet to be superseded http://wiki.eclipse.org/Modeling_Project_Ramp_Down_Policy/Helios
• After RC3: Two additional Committers and at least 2 PMC members must review and vote +1 after reviewing the bug for appropriateness and risk.
Two additional committers have reviewed the change.
I don't see why votes from the PMC would help.
After reviewing the commit myself, I see quite a lot of new lines and control flow changes in core code, but the bug description reads as a UI inelegance rather than a killer. So IMHO not really appropriate for RC4.
It's an important missing compiler analysis. I don't think UI is mentioned at all.
Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6403 - Release Date: 06/11/13
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc