According to the EDP, a release requires a review. Reviews run for a
week, which means that there isn't enough time to do a release
before EclipseCon. I will, however, do what I can to help you get
what you need assembled for a release during EclipseCon. More on
this below...
--
Maven Central is a wonderful service and we support Eclipse projects
putting their artefacts there.
From an intellectual property point of view, Eclipse projects should
be consuming artefacts from the Eclipse downloads server as part of
their build. This doesn't impact Vert.x directly, but does have an
impact on any potential Eclipse project consumers. The logic behind
this is that we don't have control over those bits. They could
change. Further, there is some risk that alternative versions of
compatible (but not IP cleared) artefacts could be consumed.
The bottom line is that the IP Policy does not support consuming
artefacts from Maven Central. If there is will, we can collectively
make a case to change this. The RT PMC is an obvious group to lead
this sort of charge.
I think that my original response reasonably described the why. If
there are specific points that need to be addressed, I'm open to the
conversation.
There is no current requirement to sign anything.
--
Characterizing the process as taking weeks is not accurate. There
is, however, some investment of time required.
We need to do a release review. Before we can start the review, you
need to create some review documentation and get approval for it
from your PMC. In addition, you need to assemble your IP Log and
submit it to the IP Team for review.
The process is outlined here:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Cycle
You have created a rudimentary plan for the 2.1 release already [1].
While I might prefer that you use themes in the plan, your use of
the delivery field is reasonable. The next step is to provide review
information. Minimally, I need to see an "elevator pitch" in the
description for the release: how would you describe this release in
15 seconds? All of the other fields are optional, it's the PMC's
call to determine how much is enough (I'm inclined to encourage the
RT PMC to look specifically for a description of any security
issues). I do like to see a check mark next to the "API
Certification" field, and a link to a new and noteworthy document
(if such a document exists).
You can use the IP Log generator [2] to create and submit the IP
Log. Please give it a once-over to make sure that nothing obvious is
missing (e.g. a contribution). If there's an error, please let me
know. FWIW, I recently upgraded our services to support projects
running on GitHub. I believe that I've tested it pretty thoroughly
(using Vert.x in particular). All you need to do then, is log in and
click "Submit".
If I can have PMC-approved release documentation in place by mid-day
tomorrow, I'll schedule a special review period to get this done by
Wednesday next week.
Short version:
* Copy your release bits to the download server
* Update the project metadata [3] to include a link to the download.
* Change the release date to March 19/2014.
* Provide an "elevator pitch" description in the release document
[1]; and check the "API Certification" check box on the review page.
* If you already have such a thing, provide a link to the new and
noteworthy document on the review page.
* Provide any other optional information that you think may be
valuable for the PMC or community.
* Send a link to the release document to the PMC and ask for
approval.
* Send a note to emo@xxxxxxxxxxx requesting the release review be
scheduled along with a link to the release document
* Open the IP Log generator[2]. Log-in if you need to. Click
"Submit"
We'll take it from there.
I think that I just described 20 minutes.
HTH,
Wayne
[1]
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/rt.vertx/releases/2.1.0/plan
[2] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?id=rt.vertx
[3] https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/rt.vertx
On 03/12/2014 09:58 AM, Mike
Milinkovich wrote:
On 12/03/2014 9:38 AM, Tim Fox wrote:
Any
unnecessary process is a big deal to me.
"Unnecessary" is purely a matter of perspective. There are
actually very good reasons for every single thing we do at
Eclipse. Literally. We question every single rule and process we
have regularly. They are not necessarily optimized for any
particular project, and we spend far more time thinking about ease
of consumption into commercial products than most. But there are
no rules which cannot be rationally explained.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we have no rules against
projects putting stuff on Maven Central. We only have
rules against projects consuming stuff from Maven
Central. By all means publish your stuff on Maven Central and
bintray in addition to eclipse.org.
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
|