[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re-spin process / DSDP-TM Re-spin request
|
Doug,
Although what you say has generally been true for IBM in the past, this
year there will be products that GA with the results of the Europa GA, so
there is definitely the expectation that the Europa GA itself is a high
quality GA not a Beta.
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
Doug Schaefer
<DSchaefer@xxxxxx
m> To
Sent by: Cross project issues
cross-project-iss <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.o
ues-dev-bounces@e rg>
clipse.org cc
Subject
07/10/2007 03:51 RE: [cross-project-issues-dev]
PM Re-spin process / DSDP-TM Re-spin
request
Please respond to
Cross project
issues
<cross-project-is
sues-dev@eclipse.
org>
I?m not sure if there is a pattern. I?ve seen few companies big or small
leaping on Europa to release a product before Sept. But then maybe it?s our
past experience with the CDT driving that:
http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com/2007/06/cdt-4-what-difference-community-makes.html
And maybe there are companies that are more willing to take the risk or are
taking safer plug-ins.
But I hope we can agree that integration testing is an area that we are
sorely missing and that a Beta program would help focus the community on
that activity.
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott
Lewis
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:38 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re-spin process / DSDP-TM Re-spin
request
While I don't disagree with Doug's little secret, I would say it is
predicated on large company/enterprise adoption patterns...and not as
obviously true for small company and/or ISV patterns of adoption.
Scott
Doug Schaefer wrote:
The thing is, if you go for more than three, how do you get agreement on
how
many and how often. The soonest we can get a new CDT back up to product
quality with all the fixes going in at the moment is September. If you
decide to go August and November, you'll miss me (of course assuming you
want me...)
Now for those new to Eclipse project management, I'll let you in on a
secret, and keep it close to your vest, but then you may have heard it
already ;). Very few products take up the end-of-June release because of
the
concerns over the lack of integration/system testing. Most have their eyes
on the Fall maintenance release since it is by then that the bits get
enough
eyes on them and the major bugs get worked out.
If we aren't going to get enough test pressure from the community before
the
end of June, we need to set our expectations accordingly. And in some ways,
I'd wouldn't mind seeing this more formalized, like calling the June
release
Europa Beta and the Fall release Europa. Hmm, the more I think about it,
the
more I like the idea of having a real Beta program. It would be a great way
to focus the community on doing the necessary testing while giving them
early access with the appropriate expectations...
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cross-project-
issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Markus Knauer
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:13 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re-spin process / DSDP-TM
Re-spin
request
Hi *,
first of all: I am a bit astonished and anxious about the direction
of
this
discussion. All that leaves behind the impression that many projects
were
not
yet ready for a release and that there is a lack of
integration/system
testing at Eclipse???
As far as EPP is concerned, I think John's recommendations are the
best
and I
would go for that. I don't want to touch the June 29th release, but I
support
the idea of starting soon with new package builds for the 'Europa
Fall
Update'. Hopefully this leads to more and better package testing and
should
improve the overall quality of the packages.
Maybe we should discuss to have more than the planned 3 EPP updates
every
year
(Europa, Europa Fall, Europa Spring); as you can see on the EPP
webpages
there is currently no plan for 'past-Europa' - I intended to start
now
with
the planning based on our experience from the Europa Release. But in
any
case 'more than 3 EPP releases every year' doesn't mean weekly or
even
daily
EPP builds for end users.
[ EPP and the current re-spin requests: DSDP is not yet included in
the
packages, Datatools might be an issue in the JEE package. ]
Markus
On Monday 09 July 2007 17:12, John Arthorne wrote:
Why are those criteria not met by releasing your fixes into a
"Europa
Fall
Update" update site/stream? There would still be a place for
the
community
and products to obtain the latest and greatest from each of the
Europa
projects, without touching the official June 29th release. I
really
think
these Europa respins directly contradict the claim that we are
reliable
and that we ship on time.
I understand the pain of discovering major bugs after a release
date -
we
all care deeply about releasing quality code. Sadly there is
*always*
one
more bug that we want to fix, and without fixing a release date
there
would be no end to the release cycle. There have already been
about 30
bug
fixes in the Eclipse top level project 3.3.1 stream, including
one
critical and three major bugs. Does this mean we should also
release
these
into the respin? No, because just as there is always one more
bug to
fix,
there is also always the next release. As long as there is some
way to
make the fixes available to those who absolutely need it, there
is no
need
to slip the entire release.
I think this debate about respins is only happening because we
don't yet
have the Europa fall update site set up yet. In the absence of
this,
Europa respins are the only way to get our critical fixes out
there. I
suggest we create a Europa fall update site as soon as possible
so we
can
put the Europa June 29th release behind us.
John
"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/09/2007 09:42 AM
Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-
council@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[cross-project-issues-dev] Re-spin process / DSDP-TM Re-spin
request
Hi all,
Regarding the re-spin process, I think we should recall what's
the
objective and value proposition of Europa. I found the best
definition
in the recent Planning Council Meeting Notes [1] (applied to
Ganymede in
that context):
"A reliable release stream for commercial product
planning."
Europa is about showing that commercial products can rely on
Eclipse,
that we ship quality and we ship it in time, and that the
various
projects can be used together because they are released
simultaneously.
In addition to that prime objective, I think there is a second
value
proposition:
"Make it simple to get an initial install of (n) dependent
projects."
This second value is more for the Open Source user community
than the
commercial one, and it's partly addressed by the EPP packages
but not
all projects are in EPP so some of them need the Europa update
site.
Keeping these two goals in mind, I agree that the main Europa
Stream
should be "closed" because otherwise it would not be reliable.
However,
we know that in every released product there can be
emergencies, patches
etc. -- but typically these are kept to the absolute minimum,
they are
reproducable and versioned.
I consider the discussion about Europa re-spins like an
extension of the
written Ramp Down Policies that were a requirement for all
projects.
Extending what most projects wrote down, I think a re-spin of
Europa
would require "Change Review by more than one PMC for
appropriateness
and risk" before a patch can be released.
Based on these thoughts, I think the requirements for an Europa
re-spin
should be
1. Reproducable: Europa on Day X must also be creatable by
getting
Europa Jun.29 plus some documented project patches via
the project
update sites or download sites.
2. Documented: Europa on Day X must exactly document each
and every
change compared to Europa Jun.29 -- by listing Bugzilla's
fixed
and listing project patches integrated (on the download
page).
3. Quality: Europa on Day X must not introduce any new bugs
compared
to Europa Jun.29 -- every patch applied must be reviewed
and
tested
for appropriateness and risk (by more than one PMC, I'd
think,
extending the current written Ramp-down policies).
All that being said, I have a concrete request for a re-spin:
DSDP-TM
discovered two critical bugs (192741 and 194204), which could
lead to
loss of data, just a little too late in the testing. These bugs
were
immediately announced in the release notes, but it took until
after 2.0
before a fix was available. We considered it our responsibility
to
provide a patch release (TM 2.0.0.1), which was delivered on
our project
update site as well as our download site this Friday [2]. The
patch
release was thoroughly tested; the fixes are documented on
bugzilla,
release notes, our Wiki as well as the patch build notes.
Referring to what Dave said, I tested and verified that "Check
For
Updates" does work properly although only the Qualifier was
changed in
the updated features and plugins (TM 2.0.0.1 is patch-only
branch and
different than TM 2.0.1 which we'll be working on for the Fall
Maintenance Release).
Why do I think this patch release should go into an Europa
re-spin? -
Because every day, people are getting fresh bits from Europa
and perhaps
not all of them "Check for Updates" after downloading. I'd like
to keep
them from losing data and thus push the patch into Europa, just
like I
changed all the download links on our home page [3]. At any
rate,
features-dsdp-tm.xml has been updated so the next Europa
re-spin should
pick up the changes.
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/councils/20070620PCMinutes.php
[2]
http://tmober.blogspot.com/2007/07/dsdp-tm-rse-2001-critical-patch-relea
se.html
[3] http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm/
Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
