Bug 380283

Summary:

[release] modeling.emf.compare 1.3.0

Product:

Community

Reporter:

Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton>

Component:

Proposals and Reviews

Assignee:

Eclipse Management Organization <emo>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

cedric.brun, laurent.goubet

Version:

unspecified

Keywords:

Documentation

Target Milestone:

---

Hardware:

OS:

Linux

Whiteboard:

Bug Depends on:

Bug Blocks:

379560

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Approved IP Log	none

Description Wayne Beaton

2012-05-22 11:04:05 EDT

Participating in Juno.

IP log received, but sent back because of a potentially missing CQ.

Awaiting review documentation.

Comment 1 Wayne Beaton

2012-05-22 11:09:48 EDT

Project metadata specifies a 1.3 (past) and a 2.0 release.  The submitted IP Log indicated 1.3. The 2.0 release aligns with the Juno timeframe. Which is the correct version number?

Comment 2 Cedric Brun

2012-05-22 11:16:22 EDT

Ouch, the project metadata was wrong.

We're planning for an 1.3 release as part of Juno, and a 2.0 release aligned with Juno but which is not in the Juno aggregation. Our objective is to help users adopt the new 2.0 API providing a release quality build guickly so that everybody moved to 2.0 for kepler.

It might be clearer if we change the release date of 2.0 so that it is not strictly speaking the Juno release date but a few days later. What would be your advice ?

Comment 3 Wayne Beaton

2012-05-22 11:26:16 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> It might be clearer if we change the release date of 2.0 so that it is not
> strictly speaking the Juno release date but a few days later. What would be your
> advice ?

It should be enough to move the release by one day.

Be sure to see the 1.3 release to June 27, 2012

Comment 4 Wayne Beaton

2012-05-22 11:26:31 EDT

s/see/set/

Comment 5 Wayne Beaton

2012-05-24 11:19:17 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)

> It might be clearer if we change the release date of 2.0 so that it is not
> strictly speaking the Juno release date but a few days later. What would be
> your advice ?

Do you really wan to to do another release one day later? Might it make some sense to move it at least a week or so later so that it doesn't get totally lost in the Juno excitement? 2.0 seems like an important milestone in the project and it feels wrong to bury/hide it. But you know your community better than I do and I defer to your judgement.

Are you combining the reviews for 1.3 and 2.0? Or should we be scheduling a second review? Will both version share the same IP Log?

Comment 6 Wayne Beaton

2012-05-25 12:16:55 EDT

IP Log forwarded to the IP team for review.

Comment 7 Cedric Brun

2012-05-30 05:36:51 EDT

We'll follow your advice. We'll stick to RC builds during summer and push the 2.0 release up to September. We noticed releasing around Juno was making things obscure. We are not combining the review and by then the IP log could be quite different.

Comment 8 Wayne Beaton

2012-05-30 16:17:11 EDT

Created attachment 216532 [details]
Approved IP Log

Comment 9 Laurent Goubet

2012-06-04 04:46:48 EDT

The release review material for EMF Compare 1.3 can be found online at http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF_Compare/ReleaseReview/Juno

Comment 10 Wayne Beaton

2012-06-04 13:16:18 EDT

The review is scheduled.

Comment 11 Wayne Beaton

2012-06-13 12:51:02 EDT

The release review has been declared successful! Please continue with your release.