Bug 538588 - [release] modeling.mmt.qvt-oml 2018.0.0
Summary: [release] modeling.mmt.qvt-oml 2018.0.0
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Community
Classification: Eclipse Foundation
Component: Proposals and Reviews (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Eclipse Management Organization CLA
QA Contact:
URL: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: needinfo
Depends on:
Blocks: 538601
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2018-09-04 08:31 EDT by Cydnie Smith CLA
Modified: 2018-09-19 11:12 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Cydnie Smith CLA 2018-09-04 08:31:46 EDT 
We'll use this bug to track the release

We require IP Team approval of the IP Log.

We require PMC approval of the release and review materials.
Comment 1 Ed Willink CLA 2018-09-04 08:35:20 EDT 
Why is this titled 2018.0.0?

The AC decided on e.g 2018-09 etc.

To comply with the AC and ongoing practice we use Eclipse QVTo 2018-09
(3.5.0).

Do we really need yet another numbering scheme?
Comment 3 Cydnie Smith CLA 2018-09-04 08:39:19 EDT 
PMC Approval: https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg04485.html
Comment 4 Wayne Beaton CLA 2018-09-04 10:09:17 EDT 
(In reply to Ed Willink from comment #1)
> Why is this titled 2018.0.0?

These bugs are created semi-automatically. The number was derived from the name that you gave the release, "2018-09 (3.9.0)". The algorithm tries to accommodate a bunch of different formats (you'd be surprised by how creative some releases are named) and normalize them into semantic version form. We didn't properly anticipate this particular form. I'll have a look at the algorithm.

In the meantime, I prefer that we leave this summary as it is. I'll open a bug to track an update to the code and make a relationship with this bug so that we can circle back and fix it later.
Comment 5 Ed Willink CLA 2018-09-04 11:33:07 EDT 
Once I got past my instinctive change-is-bad reaction, I realized that moving to YYYY-MM as the marketing/user's version scheme and M.M.M as the developer's scheme mitigates the mess whereby different major/minor versions are often more closely related to the age of a bundle than its semantic compatibility.

Perhaps other projects should be encouraged to exploit rather than be confounded by the new scheme.
Comment 6 Wayne Beaton CLA 2018-09-04 14:50:46 EDT 
(In reply to Ed Willink from comment #5)
> Perhaps other projects should be encouraged to exploit rather than be
> confounded by the new scheme.

There is no "new scheme". The Eclipse Development Process is pretty clear regarding release naming schemes. If you feel strongly that a new naming scheme is required/desired, then you should make this recommendation to the Architecture Council. 

AFAICT, yours are the only projects doing this.
Comment 7 Wayne Beaton CLA 2018-09-04 14:51:41 EDT 
The IP Log is approved.
Comment 8 Cydnie Smith CLA 2018-09-04 14:54:22 EDT 
I have scheduled this review to conclude on September 12.
Comment 9 Cydnie Smith CLA 2018-09-04 15:00:03 EDT 
Please disregard above comment. Release Review date has been amended.

I have scheduled this review to conclude on September 19.
Comment 10 Cydnie Smith CLA 2018-09-19 11:12:39 EDT 
I declare this review successful! Please continue with your release.