Re: [technology-pmc] Urgent: DLTK 5.1 review approval

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex.

What's going on here?

This is very late significant change that without intervention from David and Markus isn't going to make it into the official Luna release. RC4 has already been created; these are the same bits that will be come GA (again, unless we rerun the aggregation build again).

Frankly, rolling this out now is a significant risk that, frankly, defeats the entire purpose of the simultaneous release.

Do you know if your downstream consumers have already tested with these bits?

Wayne

On 06/12/2014 10:41 AM, Markus Knauer wrote:

Hi Technology PMC,

we've seen a commit to the Simultaneous Release Git repository from DLTK with a 5.1 version today [1].

I don't think that I need to mention that +3 day was yesterday, and that this contribution is *not* included in the aggregated p2 repository, nor in any of the EPP packages.

Apart from that I'm not aware of any rebuild requests from the project team, and I haven't seen any discussion on the mailing lists, but maybe this discussion got lost in the mailing list problems which we've seen today.

I just wanted to draw your attention to this.

Thanks,
Markus

[1] http://git.eclipse.org/c/simrel/org.eclipse.simrel.build.git/commit/?id=228ecde7667711b72007de74763666702c190f66

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Eric Rizzo <eclipse-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+1 on the release materials.
Regrading the DLTK project health, I was hoping the Koneki team members would be interested in becoming committers on DLTK since they have expressed interest in forking it, but the last response from Simon didn't sound promising (I've attached it to refresh everyone's memory). That still seems like a promising future to keep DLTK from dying, but it would likely take some convincing.

Eric

Wayne Beaton

June 11, 2014 11:36 AM

Greetings PMC.

I need to ask you for approval of the release review materials on behalf of the DLTK project.

The review materials simply state that the release is focused on providing bug fixes. I reviewed the repository, and believe that this description is correct. AFAICT, there are no new method or API.

Given that the the release contains bug fixes only, they probably don't need to do a review at all, so the scant documentation is, IMHO, sufficient.

https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.dltk/reviews/5.1.0-release-review

I appreciate your +1.

FWIW, this is at least the second time that I've had to request approval on behalf of DLTK. I am concerned about the continued viability of this project. They seem to be perennially under-resourced; given that several other simultaneous release participants depend on the project, this could end up being a big problem. We need to see what we can do to help them get their footing back.

Thanks,

Wayne

_______________________________________________
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

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects