[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [technology-pmc] Re: EPF Release Review
|
Wayne,
Please confirm that the explanation and action plan below is acceptable. If not, what would be the PMC recommendation for the short term?
Thank you,
Ricardo.
______________________________________________________
Ricardo Balduino, MSSE | |
Senior Software Engineer | IBM Rational |
Method Architect | Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team |
Bingxue Xu---09/17/2009 04:33:32 PM---Hi Ricardo, We don't have any specific reason beside for the historic one: we had used 1.0.1.2 for D
![]()
From: | ![]()
Bingxue Xu/Cupertino/IBM |
![]()
To: | ![]()
Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS |
![]()
Cc: | ![]()
Bruce Macisaac/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bingxue Xu/Cupertino/IBM |
![]()
Date: | ![]()
09/17/2009 04:33 PM |
![]()
Subject: | ![]()
Re: [technology-pmc] Re: EPF Release Review |
Hi Ricardo,
We don't have any specific reason beside for the historic one: we had used 1.0.1.2 for Dec. 13, 2006 release, and 1.2.0.x during 2007 & 2008 releases, and continued with 1.5.0.x
http://www.eclipse.org/epf/downloads/tool/tool_downloads.php
I suppose that we are not following the version numbering guidelines closely enough (our fault), and I'd suggest to update and follow the guidelines for the future releases.
Thanks.
Bing.
![Inactive hide details for Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM]()
Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM
Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM
09/17/2009 02:37 PM
|
|
Bing,
Would you please help address Wayne's question below?
Thank you.
Ricardo.
______________________________________________________
Ricardo Balduino, MSSE | |
Senior Software Engineer | IBM Rational |
Method Architect | Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team |
Wayne Beaton ---09/17/2009 02:10:00 PM---The version numbering guidelines [1] suggest three-segment version numbers (with a fourth "qualifie
![]()
From: | ![]()
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
![]()
To: | ![]()
Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
![]()
Cc: | ![]()
technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx, emo@xxxxxxxxxxx |
![]()
Date: | ![]()
09/17/2009 02:10 PM |
![]()
Subject: | ![]()
Re: [technology-pmc] Re: EPF Release Review |
![]()
Sent by: | ![]()
technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx |
The version numbering guidelines [1] suggest three-segment version
numbers (with a fourth "qualifier" segment).
Can you tell me why EPF is using four segments?
Wayne
Ricardo Balduino wrote:
>
> Yes, we are (from 1.5.0.3 to 1.5.0.4).
>
> Ricardo.
> ______________________________________________________
> Ricardo Balduino, MSSE
>
>
> Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational
> Method Architect Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 09/17/2009 01:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] Re: EPF Release Review
> Sent by: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> We are talking about a +0.0.1 version number increment, right?
>
> Wayne
>
> Ricardo Balduino wrote:
> >
> > Wayne,
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification. This is indeed a maintenance release
> > of EPF.
> >
> > Anne,
> >
> > Apologies that I got the car in front of the horses. Please cancel the
> > tentative time slot for the EPF review at this time.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ricardo.
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Ricardo Balduino, MSSE
> >
> >
> > Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational
> > Method Architect Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: 09/17/2009 12:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] Re: EPF Release Review
> > Sent by: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Service releases (bug fix releases with no new features) do not require
> > a review. Check out exception three in section 6.4 of the development
> > process:
> >
> >
> http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php#6_4_Releases
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > Ricardo Balduino wrote:
> > >
> > > PMC,
> > >
> > > When gathering the information for this release, it occurred to us
> > > that maintenance releases may not required a release review.
> > > Is this a correct assumption?
> > >
> > > We are essentially delivering fixes on the 2 major components: EPF
> > > Composer tool and Process Library.
> > > Please refer to project plan for details, located at:
> > >
> >
> http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=technology.epf
> > >
> > > And please let us know at your earliest convenience if we should
> > > proceed with the Release Review, as we would need to prepare the
> > > project log and slides if affirmative.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much,
> > > Ricardo Balduino
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > > Ricardo Balduino, MSSE
> > >
> > >
> > > Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational
> > > Method Architect Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM
> > > To: technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Per Kroll/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> > > Date: 09/16/2009 11:18 AM
> > > Subject: EPF Release Review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Technology PMC,
> > >
> > > The EPF project team is preparing to release a new version on October
> > > 10 and we kindly request your approval to have a release review on
> > > October 7, as described by the EMO below.
> > >
> > > Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or
> comments.
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Ricardo Balduino.
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > > Ricardo Balduino, MSSE
> > > Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational
> > > Method Architect Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded by Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM on 09/16/2009 08:39
> > > AM -----
> > > From: Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> > > Cc: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: 09/15/2009 06:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-committers] Eclipse
> > Project Reviews
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Ricardo,
> > >
> > > We are planning to have reviews on Wednesday, Oct. 7, at 8am PDT. If
> > > everything is ready for your review by Sept. 30 (one week before the
> > > review date), you could have your review then.
> > >
> > > There are three things we need for the review: 1) PMC approval; 2)
> > > approved IP Log, and 3) docuware (slides).
> > >
> > > This page has a detailed description of the steps in the review
> > > process:
> > >
> >
> _http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Review_Information_for_Project_Leads#Release_Reviews_
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you have any questions after reading the wiki page and referenced
> > > documentation, just let me know. Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anne Jacko _
> > > __emo@eclipse.org_ <mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Ricardo Balduino wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Anne,
> > >
> > > When are the next Release Review meetings scheduled for (late
> > > September / early October)?
> > > We have an upcoming release of EPF, and would like to know when we
> > > should present the review.
> > > Are the deliverables for the review meeting the same as before (i.e.
> > > slide deck and project log)?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Ricardo Balduino.
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > > Ricardo Balduino, MSSE
> > > Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational
> > > Method Architect Rational Method Composer (RMC) Team
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > technology-pmc mailing list
> > > technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > technology-pmc mailing list
> > technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > technology-pmc mailing list
> > technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc



