[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[jwt-dev] AW: Yearly release train
|
Hi all,
we are currently discussing about whether it is possible to integrate our
project into the yearly release train and be part of Galileo 2009:
Marc, thanks for searching for the Galileo requirements. Wow, they are very
time consuming I guess. And it will need the consideration of several new
systems that we didn't use yet (maybe Buckminster, the creation of
.sc-files, using only MANIFEST.MF instead of plugin.xml, Pack200, Signing
the plugins, etc.).
I now subscribed to the cross-project.inbox-mailing list and will be
interested what other projects will write there. The several milestones and
releases that are listed on the website are the thing that threatens me
most: will we need to have all these milestones, too? Or will it be okay, as
Marc supposed to have a release before December and then finally working on
the last release at the end of June 2009?
I guess having a luck at all bugs is a good thing, but I wouldn't do it on a
wiki page, since this one will after a while will be outdated. Instead we
should use bugzilla for those things I guess: there you can also estimate
how many time a bug will take to be fixed, etc.
How the different versions for Ganymede and Galileo can be achieved is also
unclear to me: especially if we find a bug that is important to be fixed
also for Ganymede, does this one then need to be fixed twice?
Perhaps somebody else has any idea about that...
Best regards,
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: 22 September 2008 19:37
An: Florian Lautenbacher
Cc: christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: Yearly release train
Hi all
Your link describes the plan only for the Eclipse top level project.
This made me find those other links :
* STP's old Ganymede plan http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP/STP_1.0_Planning
* Galileo's wiki page http://wiki.eclipse.org/Galileo which describes
requirements hat participating projects must fill !
* its not yet existing pages can be found in Ganymede's old page
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Ganymede_Simultaneous_Release , which worked the
same, and is very insightful.
* ex. about how works the Ganymede build system "ganymatic" :
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Ganymede/Build .
So in summary, Galileo / Ganymede etc. are a common build system plus
requirements.
See complete requirement list at said url, but here are a few :
* 1. load any other galileo project. For us : only tests can tell.
* 3. orbit for third party libraries : what about us ?
* a lot of good practices to apply (IP, version numbers, manifests,
signed jars, website, bundles...)
* there are also optional should do's
* then it is about sticking to the common freeze plan as in
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/freeze_plan_3.4.php
Now about Galileo planning :
* 10. Projects must have stated and demonstrated their intent to join
Galileo by the M4+0 [12 dec 2008] date. Projects do so by adding themselves
to the table/list above, by signing off each milestone/RC on the
Galileo/Signoffs
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=Galileo/Signoffs&action=edit>
page, and by contributing an .sc file to the Galileo common build
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=Galileo/Build&action=edit>.
* 11. Projects must have a written ramp down policy by M6+0 [13 mar
2009], linked in the table above. (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. See Platform 3.4
Endgame plan
<http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/freeze_plan_3.4.php> as a
guideline. See also Galileo Final Daze
<http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=Galileo/Final_Daze&action=edit>.)
My analysis :
requirements :
* not hard, but many and time consuming nonetheless.
build :
* the hardest ?
* Ganymatic is built on buckminster ( http://buckminster.tigris.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/buckminster/ ), but it seems a participating project
has not to use buckminster itself, since it only has to upload its releases
and a buckminster configuration file and Ganymatic automatically triggers a
reload. I believe we don't have to install buckminster yet, since we don't
have that many (compared to STP) contributing organisations.
* So it is mainly making, testing & uploading releases, but we know how
time consuming it is ! I even believe that for it to be not too painful, we
have to match the Ganymede release schedule, and track precisely down which
bugzilla goes into which release ahead of time.
Finally, TODOs :
* state our intent to participate on the Galileo page before december
* requirements : Track them down on a dedicated JWT wiki page, schedule
them as bug fixes if needed, estimate their cost for the most difficult
ones, fill most of them before december, fill the rest before the final
release
* build : before december 12th : do a release, write and provide the .sc
file, get access to the Callisto CVS, upload the release there.
Later : streamline it, write procedure on wiki for project manager but
developers as well.
Still QUESTIONS :
* how do we manage to be at the same time compatible with Ganymede and
Galileo dependencies ?? with a branch ? but STP has no branch (
http://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/stp/ )... Or do we have to give up on our CVS
JWT working with Ganymede ?
* on the same idea, I feel we'll have to be very strict (Florian will be
ok ;) with ex. IP of developments put in the CVS, because it shouldn't at
milestone time forbid us to do the release...
Your feedback ?
Regards,
Marc
Florian Lautenbacher a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> just for your information: There's not much to find about the upcoming
> release. I know that it will be named Galileo and that there are
> already several other projects that will be integrated in Galileo as
> can be found in http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse/Galileo_Plan. But I
> didn't receive an email or found anything comparable which describes
> the process how we could integrate our project into Eclipse 3.5.
>
> Best regards and have a nice evening,
>
> Florian
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: 22 September 2008 18:00
> An: Florian Lautenbacher
> Betreff: Re: AW: JWT Reviews
>
> Just to say thanks for putting me in as said last week ;) Regards,
> Marc
>
