Re: [tools-pmc] aCute *wish* to participate in Simultaneous Release

[Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You bring up a good point about the rule to state intent early. When switching to allow minor releases in the quarters, I’m not sure we thought through the timing of these things. Even with CDT we won’t publish our first real Photon build until M5. We have a pretty big release for Oxygen.2 coming up taking what little resources we have.

 

Doug.

 

From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mickael Istria
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:01 PM
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: acute developer discussions <acute-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] aCute *wish* to participate in Simultaneous Release

 

 

 

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I guess, my first question, if it’s not ready yet, why the rush to put it in simrel for Photon? Why not do your own release for now and add it later. We do have examples, pretty big ones, of things being added in the quarterly releases, why not add it in Photon.1?

 

I don't consider that stating in November that aCute would like to be in by June is a rush ;)

But you're right, if going into Photon.1 is the only path possible, it's not so bad.

 

 And if you really want to get it into Photon.0, it might be easier to ask for a late add exception when your confident you want it in.

 

I agree. But in that case, it means that the "state intent early" rule is not so necessary. I think it's something Planning Council should clarify. For example by saying "state intent early, but it's fine if you don't and the project isn't upstream of anything".