| I think the general feeling is +1 and you have my +1. I see some +1 from planning council too.
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2023, at 11:53, Manoj Nalledathu Palat via eclipse-pmc <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear All,
I believe this definitely deserves an explanation (or may be more than one) given the concerns raised:
The original issue raised in the thread has been brought about by some modifications made to the most recent MacOS Sonoma release. We believed that a new MacOS update
would resolve the issue. A similar issue in which "Eclipse" being wrongly displayed as "New Application" was fixed by Apple in the latest MacOS Sonoma 14.1 release. That's what we anticipated happening with this as well. Unfortunately it did not happen. Thus,
in order to solve this problem, we had to come up with a workaround. Although not a major blocking issue , the user experience may not be good from the inverted image and thus considered making a last-minute effort. We acknowledge that this was delayed. The
PR was merged so as to not delay RC2a. We agree that we should have waited, and we'll be careful going forward. We haven't promoted it yet.
Though I am not a committer here in platform, I was also involved, along-with others, in investigating this issue yesterday and hence thought of commenting
– this response summarises the thought of all involved. Completely agree with Ed that this is neither a security issue nor any functionality reducing issue. And given that there is a mixed feeling about putting this in 4.30,
Its fine if it is not included in 4.30 and if we don’t create a RC2a.
PMC: Please let know your take again whether an RC2a is fine or not.
Regards,
Manoj.
From:
eclipse-pmc <eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Andrey Loskutov via eclipse-pmc <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2023 at 2:32 PM
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrey Loskutov <loskutov@xxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Requesting for RC2a Build for 4.30
I fully agree with Alex. I was surprised this morning to see that fast merge of two PR's without any chance for others to respond/review. It is not a security or
blocker issue that need an immediate reaction. This is not how RC2+ changes should
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
This message came from outside your organization.
|
|
|
I fully agree with Alex.
I was surprised this morning to see that fast merge of two PR's without any chance for others to respond/review.
It is not a security or blocker issue that need an immediate reaction.
This is not how RC2+ changes should be handled and I hope that will not happen in the future.
On Friday December 1 09:47:11 2023 (+01:00), Aleksandar Kurtakov via eclipse-pmc wrote:
I have BIG concerns about the workflow here. This is a major issue I agree but this has been neglected for months thus clearly not a regression. Beyond the last minute a sloppy workaround is put - for a critical AND WELL KNOWN issue this
should have happened before RC phase even.
Furthermore, going for respin immediately after the first reply (PMC still needs majority vote last I checked!) and without any communication with Planning council for simrel respin is irresponsible and creates tension as further work (it
takes a day for EPPs to produce!) is just created for others. What is presented as download to end users (https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/) is the result of this extra work and the bits produced by us are
not directly visible there.
So do we as a project make a statement that Simrel/EPPs doesn't matter ?
With all that said my vote is "0" ( +1 for the sake of end users and -1 for execution).
--
--
Kind regards,
Andrey Loskutov
Спасение утопающих - дело рук самих утопающих
https://www.eclipse.org/user/aloskutov
_______________________________________________eclipse-pmc mailing listeclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
|
