[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Europa Simultaneous Release?
|
I agree with Kevin. We are small project considering the head count and
it would be better to put effort for the product rather than process. As
such the Europa is a great thing but I prefer to be out for now. Being
out doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve our process and Europa
gives good guidelines so that one day we are ready to it.
Rauno
________________________________
From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Gaff, Doug
Sent: 07 November, 2006 17:24
To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Europa Simultaneous Release?
Regardless of whether you guys are on the train or not, the
discipline of building the milestones and populating an update site is
valuable and should probably be done anyway. This is also the hardest
part of Europa.
The Planning Council specifically discussed incubation projects
(<1.0 projects) and decided that Europa was a good way to get the
technology to a wider audience, despite the potential lack of technical
maturity. However, I can understand your hesitation. If you decide
against the train, please strongly consider _still_ doing the must have
requirements below.
From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin M Horowitz
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:14 AM
To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Europa Simultaneous Release?
Hi,
I have been thinking about this since the mail went out, and
while I think we should look at all of the required aspects of
participation, and add them to our requirements list (and implement
them), I don't think MTJ is ready to be part of the "Europa" release. We
are just going to hit our 1.0 release, and have a lot to do to hit that.
I think we are better doing the 1.0 release independent of the Europa
train, and then looking to join the next release train with a follow-on.
We have learned a lot over the 0.7 release, but I think we are still
going to be more surprises as we continue. I also think we need to get
more participation from the community before we are ready to part of the
integrated release.
kevin
-----------------------------
Kevin Horowitz (khorowit@xxxxxxxxxx)
IBM Software Group - WPLC
8051 Congress Ave.
Boca Raton, Fl 33487
+1-561-862-2113 (t/l 975)
<Arto.Laurila@xxxxxxxxx>
<Arto.Laurila@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/06/2006 05:32 AM
Please respond to
Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
<dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
<dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Europa Simultaneous Release?
Hi all,
To get this started, I did include some opinions and our work
estimates to follow the "Europa" simultaneous release process.
Any opinions are welcome ...
As these are required for participation:
1. The projects must work together.
-> This means that MTJ has to make a lot more testcases for
that.
-> Work estimate 1 man month (must do also during our milestones
(aka during builds) and before release)
2. Projects must have build process maturity and their own
functional project update site - the Europa site will reference these
sites, not replace them.
-> We have to get an update site, our build process is quite ok.
-> Work estimate 1 week (one or two days for creating and three
or four for testing)
3. Projects must optimize
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Update_Site_Optimization> their
update site using pack200 <http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Pack200> to
reduce bandwidth utilization and provide a better update experience for
users. Additionally, they should do site digesting.
-> Also these we should include in our build process
-> Work estimate 1 week
4. Projects must use 4-part version numbers.
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering>
-> Very small issue
-> Work estimate 1 day
5. Projects must provide both run-times and SDKs through their
update sites and thence through the Europa update site. (The Planning
Council identified that this might not be technically possible due to
bugs in the update manager's computation of required dependencies. We
will remove this requirement if it proves to be impossible.)
->Already MTJ does this
-> Work estimate 0 day
6. Projects must use signed plugins using the Eclipse
certificate.
-> This we would need to do
-> Work estimate 1 week
7. Any third-party plug-ins that are common between projects
must be consumed via Orbit <http://www.eclipse.org/orbit/> ; the final
Europa release will not have duplicate third-party libraries (note that
this only applies to identical versions of the libraries; thus if
project A requires foo.jar 1.6 and project B uses foo.jar 1.7, that's
ok).
-> No problem to us
-> Work estimate 0 day
8. All plug-ins must correctly list their required JVM versions
in the manifest/plugin.xml.
-> Small issue for us
-> Work estimate one or two days
9. Project representatives must attend the planning meetings and
conference calls - you have to be involved to be involved.
-> Does this mean Rauno or Mika or the development guys?
10. At least one person from each project must subscribe to
cross-project bug inbox, i.e. edit Bugzilla prefs to watch
cross-project.inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cross-project.inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx>
-> See above
11. Build team members from each project will provide
communication channels: phone, mail, IM, IRC and will be available
during to-be-specified crucial integration times
-> No problem to us
-> Work estimate 1 week
12. Projects must have stated and demonstrated their intent to
join Europa by the M4+0 date. Projects do so by adding themselves to the
table/list above, along with their contact information.
-> Project management issue
13. Projects that have demonstrated an inability to synchronize
with Europa milestones by M6 will be removed from the Europa
simultaneous release unless the remaining Europa projects vote to retain
said project.
-> See above
And these are recommended for participating projects:
1. Projects should have jar'ed plug-ins because this is good
Eclipse citizenship.
->OK MTJ already has nearly all as jarred, thus few plugins are
as folders (but they do have some other content also)
2. Projects should use Eclipse message bundles, not Java bundles
because this is a good Eclipse citizenship. (see Message Bundle
Conversion Tool
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Message_Bundle_Conversion_Tool> and
[1]
<http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/platform-core/documents/3.1/message_bund
les.html> )
-> We already have this.
3. Build reproducibility? Require that projects be buildable by
community members. Should be identical bits (but not required). All
build assets and documentation in CVS/Subversion.
-> This needs actually that the build process is documented.
-> Work estimate one week
4. Non-project-team-members should be able to build each
project.
->See above
5. Non-project-team-members should be able to run unit tests on
each project.
-> See above
6. Source tarballs should be created for Linux distros to build
with.
-> This we should do also
-> Work estimate 2 days
7. Should have new & noteworthy for each milestone. Should be
something readable and usable not just a static list of all the bugs.
Corollary: individual new & noteworthy should be linked in to the
collective New & Noteworthy.
-> A small task for us. We should collect some information about
the active tasks and put those in some txt file.
8. Projects should use ICU4J.
- Kevin, do you have an opinion for this?
9. Projects should provide build RSS feeds as per the build
workshop.
-> Rather small issue, but this I would not feel to be the most
important now.
10. Projects should have a written ramp down policy. (One of the
issues identified with this guideline is that its not so much the ramp
down policy of how many votes are needed for each bug fix that we need
to be consistent on, but rather the meaning of each of the milestones
and release candidates. Here [2]
<http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/~checkout~/eclipse-project-hom
e/plans/3_2/freeze_plan_3.2.html> is the Platform 3.2 ramp down policy
as a guideline for other projects.)
-> This needs some more discussion.
-Arto
________________________________
From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 November, 2006 08:57
To: dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Europa Simultaneous Release?
Hi,
As many of you are aware of simultaneuos release cycle of
certain projects, I would like to rise a discussion should MTJ be part
of it.
Here is a link to project wiki:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Europa_Simultaneous_Release
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Europa_Simultaneous_Release> .
If we want to be part of it, there are plenty of requriements
for the project. Please, feel free to comment the topic.
Rauno _______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
