Working on it.
-Raghu
From:
wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006
6:47 AM
To: wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wtp-pmc] Fw: Please
smoke test 1.5.1 Thu,14 Sep 2006 -- 06:50 (UTC)
Fellow PMC members,
Been
a busy week? :) I know several were just submitted yesterday, but there
are many bugs that still need PMC review.
When
asked, I told committers to go ahead and release for our release candidate this
week (based on my review alone),
with
the condition that they might have to revert if any PMC member objected. But,
please finish your
reviews
today since we should not really revert after we declare.
And
.. please keep your eye on the list through out the day, in case there's any
late-breaking candidates for a re-spin.
http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/plans/1.5.1/pmc-bug-approval.php
I'm
sure there will be more candidates for another candidate next week ... but, we
want to do what we can to minimize them.
Much
thanks,
----- Forwarded by David M
Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 09/14/2006 09:39 AM -----
David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM
09/14/2006 09:39 AM
|
To
|
wtp-releng
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
Please smoke test
1.5.1 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 -- 06:50 (UTC)
|
|
Please
smoke test and report results to wtp-releng@xxxxxxxxxxx
1.5.1
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 -- 06:50 (UTC)
Remember, we want this build (or, what ever we end up declaring on Friday, if
respin is needed) to be our "release candidate" for
the Callisto Fall Maintenance, which means all on its own it really should be
worth of a maintenance release, if we absolutely could not
include more fixes after this week.
This means, this "smoke test" should be little deeper than most ...
please confirm versions IDs, visually inspect (or use "diff")
on installed runtime and SDK code to confirm all is as expected, and use it to
verify any previous blocking or critical bug fixes!
This means, after declared, only the safest, highest impact, most review, and
most tested fixes for the worst bugs should be brought forward
for consideration. Yes, we want to improve quality, but, at this point
stability and avoidance of regressions is just as important.