Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Reminder of First Wednesday Meeting,

[Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes!

I think David covered this in his write-up [1] when he questioned "is service release the right name?". If we are going to be putting new major features in an SR (which we said is allowed), are we doing any favours by calling it a "service release". Yes, the fall (and February) simultaneous releases usually only contain "Eclipse Platform Service Updates", but the rest of train may or may not follow these same guidelines.  

[1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/May_06_2015

Cheers,

Ian

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 06/05/2015 11:09 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:

I completely agree. Note that when Java 7 GAed in September, we approved to ship the support with SR1 in September.

I remember that being less than ideal. Add support for a new Java major release is a pretty big deal that shouldn’t be hidden in a service release.

Yes.

I would like to point out that an element that has been completely missing from the conversation to this point is the marketing aspects of what we choose to do. Sure, we can include things in a SR. But those are not perceived by our users and adopters in the same way as a new "release". Marketing messages shape perception, and perception is reality. We need to keep that in mind.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.

--

R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource