No, no show stopper, from my point of view.
I was asking questions trying to decide if this was an "exception"
case, that should go the planning council, or not. Or, if you were "on
I think you've clarified, in the write
up of your review, that it is indeed a "minor feature release".
You've also clarified that "the
code has been in the build all along" (as well as clarified you didn't
really mean "coincide", but
instead meant "as part of" Mars.1).
The only remaining question I have is if
the code that has been building all along has had the version change in
it? Or, is that yet to be done? If yet to be done, I'd want to at least
"warn" people a minor increment was coming in late.
But, just looked, and it does currently have
"1.2" in the maintenance repository, so I will assume it has
had for a while, and no warning is needed.
Based on all that, I'll give my +1.
For the record, should go through the Planning
Council Exception process, since "review document" were so late,
but, I think I can defend that this is an exception to the exception Primarily
just because its obvious it would be extra work for people ... not based
on any of the stated reasons for being late. (i.e. the IP Log should be
correct "as you go along" and things published early enough that
the IP staff has time to review and approve it before your other deadlines).
In the Planning
Document, recently updated, is does
say "...new projects and even
new features must essentially be complete, including release review records,
by RC1. Anything later than that, must also go through the Planning Council's
Process." So, I don't
think there is any documentation to change. But, this is new, to some people,
so may just be a matter of socializing what the rules are.
Thanks, and good luck with your 1.2
Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx> To:
Tools PMC mailing list
09/09/2015 11:59 AM Subject:
Approval for Oomph 1.2.0 Release Review Sent by:
Am 09.09.2015 um 16:05 schrieb Doug Schaefer: As I mentioned in the Linux Tools request, the deadline
is RC1. I think the planning council needs to make that more visible as
it seems not everyone knows that. I haven’t heard when the Foundation
has sent out the materials to the community for review or when they plan
to. If it takes us a week to approve this, you may miss that window. I get the sense there's quite a bit of confusion involved;
at least on my end. So please let me explain:
The Oomph project does not yet have a parallel maintenance stream/branch.
We only release from our master branch, but that three times a year (I
would say coinciding with simrel.0, .1, and .2, but that already led to
confusion :P ). So, directly after our 1.1.0 release at Mars.0 time I scheduled
the 1.2.0 release for Mars.1 time and announced participation in Neon with
a target release of 1.4.0 (assuming we'll have the 1.3.0 release with Mars.2).
At all milestone builds for both simrel versions (Mars and Neon) we've
contributed properly and not caused problems or surprises.
So the only thing that may be late is our 1.2.0 release review, not the
1.2.0 code that's already in simrel for months. This 3-releases-a-year
process is also new to me as a project lead and it may well be that I missed
a clause in the simrel docs that requires notice periods different from
the EDP (which says "no shorter than a week before the release review").
Not sure I could clarify all questions (don't hesitate to ask!), but it
strikes me the most important one is: Is there any show-stopper in here
or can I expect to ship Oomph 1.2 with Mars.1?
Would also be nice to have a community friendly New and
Noteworthy. I understand you’re a really small project but listing the
enhancement request titles doesn’t really give a sense of the important
things they need to know about the release. I've enhanced the release description with a N&N-like,
shorter bullet list of achievements.
And yes, you don’t need to wait for the IP Log to ask
for our approval. We generally don’t care about that. As a PMC, we just
want to make sure the content is well documented and properly minor release
(I.e. Has significant new features and has no API breakage). Anyway, the IP Log is now approved and Wayne told me that
he makes it public.
Am 09.09.2015 um 07:48 schrieb David M Williams: Not sure what you are asking us to do.
a) If this is a minor update, as it appears to be, Yes, a minor release.
kind of late to be "surprising"
us with that when we are nearly done. Yes, late. But too late?
Note that I wrongly assumed I cannot publish the review before the IP Log
is approved. The release itself has been scheduled long ago.
b) worse, your release review materials
are basically non-existent. Though, I'll admit, I've had trouble "finding"
them before, so maybe am just missing it in that web of web pages. I think the most important piece of information is the
list of bug fixes and enhancements that we provide.
c. The language "coincide with
Mars.1" usually means "it is at the same time, but is not part
of the Simultaneous Release repository". Is that the case here? How's
that to work, since there is a version there, in Sim. Release repo (right?)
as well as some have it already installed, so I suspect those people will
be an update, regardless of where it "lives" (right?) I didn't pay much attention on the word "coincide"
when I copied the mail body from someone else. Honestly, I don't think
it's wrongly used. We'll release our 1.2.0 version at the same time as
the release train releases its Mars.1 version. But if you insist, please
just ignore that word.