Re: [tools-pmc] Linux Tools 1.1 release

[Otávio Pontes <obusatto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, we do have a business need for this release. Thanks for the approvals.

On 07/17/2012 11:23 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> +1
>
> The Juno SR's usually don't have a release review since most projects
> don't add new features in a service release. So I'm OK with doing this
> now and getting it out of the way.
>
> Doug.
>
> From: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Reply-To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Tuesday, 17 July, 2012 10:18 AM
> To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>" <tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] Linux Tools 1.1 release
>
> +1
>
> Ok, I assume you have a "business need" to have the 1.1 release now,
> then, early. If not, best to wait.
> But as long as you are willing to test SR1 "stack" and have a 1.1.1 if
> needed, then I'm fine with this release.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> From: Otávio Pontes <obusatto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:obusatto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Date: 07/17/2012 09:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] Linux Tools 1.1 release
> Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> The 1.0 was a typo and I have fixed that.
> And we intend to contribute to Juno SR1. We don't plan any minor release
> before SR1, but we can have a 1.1.1 if we find bugs in the 1.1.
>
> On 07/17/2012 10:18 AM, David M Williams wrote:
> >  The doc seems fine, but a) the initial heading says "1.0", I assume
> >  that's a "typo". But, more important, b. you say "we intend to
> >  contribute to Juno" ... but, Juno (at least SR0) has come and gone. Did
> >  you mean SR1 (in which case, its a little early, isn't it?) Or ... did
> >  you mean something else?
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  From: Otávio Pontes <obusatto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:obusatto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> >  To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >  Date: 07/17/2012 09:04 AM
> >  Subject: [tools-pmc] Linux Tools 1.1 release
> >  Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >  Hi,
> >
> >  The Linux Tools project requests PMC approval for our 1.1 release which
> >  we intend to contribute to Juno. Our IP log has been submitted
> >  (before the deadline) and has been approved.Our release review docuware
> >  is here:
> >
> >  http://eclipse.org/linuxtools/doc/LinuxTools1.1ReleaseReview.html
> >
> >  I sent one e-mail asking for approval from the technology-pmc and I was
> >  told to send this to the tools PMC. With the 1.0 release, Linux Tools
> >  moved to Tools, but the move has not been completed yet; we're waiting
> >  on a move bug [1] for that.
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >
> >  Otavio Pontes
> >
> >
> >  [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=382579
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  tools-pmc mailing list
> >  tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  tools-pmc mailing list
> >  tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc