RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
I totally agree. I think the real issue with the Tools PMC is the lack of
man power. We all have our own day jobs and the PMC work always seems to
slide to the bottom of the priority list. And for some reason we have what
feels like more than our share of rogue projects that aren't following
rules. Although maybe that's feeding itself.
In my mind there are two solutions:
1) Grow the PMC to include all the project leads and have regular calls to
keep each other in check.
2) Find a better project structure such that the PMC is actually more
relevant. We had a similar thread recently on source control. I claim that
the Tools project lacks cohesion betweens its projects making it difficult
to be functional. This isn't TPTP or Modeling where the projects are all
1) is probably the most practical short term. But, my gut tells me though
that 2) is the better answer.
Failing either, I can imagine the Tools PMC imploding in on itself, not that
anyone would notice, or maybe it already has :)
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:53 AM
> To: 'Ed Merks'; 'Tools PMC mailing list'
> Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx; beatmik@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
> The main point isn't the process. It's the responsibility.
> The EMO is getting awfully tired of being the only ones who seem to
> our processes. And then get blamed for lack of education when people don't
> follow it.
> It is completely clear from every governance and process document in the
> Eclipse Foundation that the PMC has a role to play here. If the Tools
> Project *Management* Committee doesn't like my process idea, that's fine.
> Figure out another way to step up to the plate. Mentor your projects,
> your projects, manage your projects, whatever. These are *your*
> sub-projects, not the EMO's.
> > Given that there is a process that requires a release review that folks
> > aren't following (I assume because they aren't aware), I'm really not
> > sure
> > how an additional process will help with that. It seems many groups
> > need
> > to make this same mistake at least once and Eclipse has a whole heck of
> > a
> > lot of rules that tend to change rather frequently. It seems the only
> > solution is better education, better mentoring, better information and
> > that
> > more rules to deal with rules that aren't being followed is kind of a
> > circular problem generator. But hey, that's just my opinion...
> > Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> > mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
> > "Mike
> > Milinkovich"
> > <mike.milinkovich
> > To
> > @eclipse.org> "'Tools PMC mailing list'"
> > Sent by: <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > tools-pmc-bounces <mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > @eclipse.org <beatmik@xxxxxxx>
> > cc
> > emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 10/17/2007 10:18
> > Subject
> > AM RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did
> > not
> > have a Release Review
> > Please respond to
> > mike.milinkovich@
> > eclipse.org;
> > Please respond to
> > Tools PMC mailing
> > list
> > <tools-pmc@eclips
> > e.org>
> > I find it personally regrettable that the EMO seemingly needs to be the
> > lone policeman in these situations. Neither Bjorn nor I enjoy the role
> > of
> > traffic cop.
> > The PMC is supposed to have a role to play in ensuring that individual
> > projects are following the development and IP processes.
> > Would it be unreasonable to ask the Tools PMC that they institute a
> > process
> > whereby all projects in Tools seek PMC approval before posting a M.N
> > release? If you have another proposal, that would be fine. But I hope
> > you
> > get my drift J
> > Mike Milinkovich
> > Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
> > Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
> > mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:16 AM
> > To: mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; beatmik@xxxxxxx
> > Cc: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx; emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
> > Mik, Eugene, Gail, Ian, Rob, Steffen, (cc/ Tools PMC)
> > I noticed that the Mylyn web page announces the 2.1 release of Mylyn as
> > of
> > September 27th. However, I do not recall having a Release Review for
> > 2.1
> > (looking at the list of completed reviews, I don't see it either). All
> > major releases are required to go through a Release Review, where
> > "major"
> > is defined as M.N. Bug fix releases (M.N.P) are exempt assuming that
> > there
> > are no new features in a bug fix release. The Mylyn N&N implies that
> > there
> > are new features in 2.1, so it's not just a bug fix release, right?
> > Thus, either:
> > There was a 2.1 Release Review and I am forgetting it (if so,
> > please
> > provide a url), or
> > The 2.1 Release is really a 2.0.1 Release and thus exempt (if so,
> > please explain why the N&N shows new features), or
> > There was no 2.1 Release Review.
> > In the later case, you need to remedy that error ASAP. Anne will get
> > you on
> > the schedule in the absolutely next available slot. In the meantime,
> > you
> > should also take the 2.1 release off the website and the download and
> > update site until it has had a Release Review and IP clearance.
> > - Bjorn
> > --
> > [end of message]_______________________________________________
> > tools-pmc mailing list
> > tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> tools-pmc mailing list