| RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review |
|
I don’t know if additional policing is required because as
lead I take full responsibility for anything that goes wrong with our release
reviews, and in this case it looks like this is a result of my not
understanding well enough when release reviews are required. I first
proposed our 2.x release plans and schedule first in our 2.0
release review, and then in the following message: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/mylyn-dev/msg00052.html
To summarize, Mylyn is a project whose UI and user base is evolving
quickly enough that we need to meet the following constraints: ·
Major UI usability problems or needs to be addressed for the
next Europa/EPP update along with bug fixes, and in many cases are more
important for our users than traditional “bug fixes”. This
means that our versions increment 2.1, 2.2, not 2.0.1, 2.0.2. Fixing bugs
without addressing usability and responding to key UI builds does not work for
us since our user community has been growing so rapidly and having most users
wait 12 months for UI changes would not support our evolution and growth. ·
We need to support two Eclipse streams (3.3/Europa and 3.4/Ganymede)
with the same version of Mylyn. These and additional factors discussed on bug 200628 mean
that we have come up with a release schedule that has quarterly 2.1, 2.2, and
2.3 releases, meshing with Europa updates, and leading up to Ganymede and Mylyn
3.0. The way these are consumed is visible at the top of the following
page: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Mylyn_3.0_Plan
The problem here is my assumption that our 2.x releases would be
covered by the Europa release review as are Platform’s 3.3.x releases,
and that we would not require another release review until Mylyn 3.0. It
sounds like this reasoning was flawed due to the fact that Mylyn’s UI evolves
in the 2.x releases, and that we need to have a release review for each of
those? Bjorn: as proposed in 2.0 review and post linked above, to which
there were no objections, Mylyn 2.1 was included in the Europa Fall Update EPP
packaging. So I believe that it wouldn’t do much good to remove the
latest versions from our update sites. To start it sounds like we should
do the 2.1 review ASAP (it will be a very straightforward update of the 2.0
review). After that I’d like to figure out how exactly we fit into
the current policy because having 4 release reviews a year will cause additional
administrative overhead on the project that we didn’t factor in, in which
case we may need to re-consider our release schedule based on this additional constraint. Mik From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich 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 From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson Mik, Eugene, Gail, Ian, Rob, Steffen, (cc/ Tools PMC)
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. -- [end of message] |