Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review

I think 1) would be a good idea if it were used to improve communication between the projects. I would certainly be interested in finding out more about what the other project are planning and if there is anything that can be leveraged by my project. As a side effect it should be possible to ensure that the processes are working properly and everyone understands their obligations.


On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:

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
related somehow.

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,

-----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
how an additional process will help with that.  It seems many groups
to make this same mistake at least once and Eclipse has a whole heck of
lot of rules that tend to change rather frequently. It seems the only solution is better education, better mentoring, better information and
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)

   >             "'Tools PMC mailing list'"
             Sent by:                  <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
             tools-pmc-bounces         <mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,

             10/17/2007 10:18
             AM                        RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did
                                       have a Release Review

             Please respond to
             Please respond to
             Tools PMC mailing

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
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
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
get my drift J

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223

From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
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
September 27th. However, I do not recall having a Release Review for
(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
is defined as M.N. Bug fix releases (M.N.P) are exempt assuming that
are no new features in a bug fix release. The Mylyn N&N implies that
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,
      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,
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 mailing list
tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top