Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] Approval for Oomph 1.2.0 Release Review

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 your cycle"?

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 formal Exception 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 release.

 







From:        Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        09/09/2015 11:59 AM
Subject:        Re: [tools-pmc] Approval for Oomph 1.2.0 Release Review
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




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.

Cheers
/Eike

----

http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper




Doug.

From: <tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:
Tools PMC mailing list <
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:17 AM
To:
Tools PMC mailing list <
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] Approval for Oomph 1.2.0 Release Review


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.

Cheers
/Eike

----

http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper



Can you clarify?





From:        
Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        
09/08/2015 11:46 PM
Subject:        
[tools-pmc] Approval for Oomph 1.2.0 Release Review
Sent by:        
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Dear PMC Members


Please approve the Oomph 1.2.0 release that is scheduled to coincide with Eclipse Mars.1.


https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.oomph/reviews/1.2.0-release-review

The project’s IP Log has been submitted and is awaiting approval.

Cheers
/Eike

----

http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper

_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list

tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc



_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc



_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


Back to the top