Re: [ecf-dev] Luna comitment. ALL COMMITTERS PLEASE RESPOND

[Harshana Eranga Martin <harshana05@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

I am willing to do the There will be planning and review materials
needs for the moment and help other requirements as time permits.

Thanks and Regards,
Harshana Martin
--
Harshana Eranga Martin
Senior Software Engineer,
WSO2 Inc.
Web: http://wso2.com

ECF Committer: http://www.eclipse.org/ecf/
Blog: http://harshana05.blogspot.com
Profile: https://www.google.com/profiles/harshana05


On 17 September 2013 09:47, Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> So far, I haven't heard back from any committers about what level of
> personal commitment they would be willing and able to make for Luna work.  I
> would like all committers to respond with a broad estimate what/how much
> time they are able to commit to Luna SR work, so that I can decide whether
> there will be sufficient commitment to allow our participation.  I need to
> decide within a few weeks
>
> So all committers...please respond...either to me privately or
> publicly...whatever your preference.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 9/12/2013 7:45 AM, Scott Lewis wrote:
>
> Well, we don't have a script...except to say that:
>
> 1) There will be meeting requirements needs [1]
> 2) There will be releng needs
> 3) There will be planning and review materials needs
> 4) There will be unanticipated integration needs
>
> and...of course you can view the yearly Luna plan and schedule here [1].
>
> Scott
>
> [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Luna/Simultaneous_Release_Plan
>
> On 9/12/2013 2:50 AM, Wim Jongman wrote:
>
> Hard to say. It would be nice if we had a script for the release so that we
> could plan this thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wim
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> My summary of this question is that most believe that there is some
>> benefit...to consumers and/or ECF marketing/visibility...of participation in
>> the simultaneous release.  I certainly agree with this.  it's hard, however,
>> to quantify exactly how much benefit our consumers or we get...because we
>> don't know all of the different consumers, and even for the ones we know
>> about...we don't often know the details of how they consume ECF (e.g. via
>> Eclipse, SR repo, directly from us, using p2 repos or not, etc). And...we
>> don't really know what the EF will do WRT marketing associated with the SR.
>>
>> Given this uncertainty, I think one thing to do is to focus on how we
>> (committers, contributors, and community) could do this...i.e. whether there
>> are committers that can/will dedicate time to meeting the Luna SR needs on
>> ECF (e.g. doing releng/build, dealing with IP issues, dealing with
>> integratin issues, creating review materials, etc).   As a person that's
>> done much of this over the past few years, I can say that it's not a lot of
>> work, and it's much less now than with some earlier releases, but during
>> 'release times' (milestones and then the actual release next June)...it does
>> take some significant effort.
>>
>> Just to get a feel for whether we will be able to execute on this, I would
>> like to propose that we (all committers) declare about how much they feel
>> they could contribute.  Of course it's understood that over the course of a
>> year people's availability could change for lots of reasons...so clearly
>> it's just an estimate.
>>
>> Let's assume that all the ECF SR work amounts to 100 pts (whatever that
>> ends up translating to in hours/days, etc).
>>
>> I (Scott) expect to be able to contribute 60 pts.
>>
>> Other ECF committers (and others if you wish/are able):  please respond to
>> this email with an indication of how many 'points' they expect they would be
>> able and willing to give for SR work during this coming 9 months?  Please
>> respond...if you are able/willing to provide some work on ECF for the
>> SR...even if we get more that 100 pts total :).
>>
>> The intention of this is for me to get an idea of whether we will be able
>> to perform the necessary SR work to meet this commitment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/2013 7:18 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/11/2013 02:20 PM, Steffen Pingel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it's the much better alternative if the ECF project manages the
>>>> ECF
>>>> content that ends up in the release train as we could easily end up
>>>> distributing something that doesn't make sense :).
>>>
>>> Due to p2, we are in that situation already.
>>>
>>> M.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ecf-dev mailing list
>>> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ecf-dev mailing list
>> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ecf-dev mailing list
> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ecf-dev mailing list
> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ecf-dev mailing list
> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>