[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [emft-dev] Re: [modeling-pmc] EMFT "Project" Compare 0.7.0 release without a Release Review?
|
Some questions for the sake of clarification:
a) where are the rules for the various review types posted?
b) is it OK to release, er, publish an R build as long as it's not
called a "release", but rather a "final" build? The release notes
generation assumes there will be R builds to mark points in time.
Without them, we don't have those markers, so having an S build called
0.7.0 won't work to delineate those bugs from 0.7.1; instead, they'll
all be in one HEAD or R0_7_maintenance "bucket", so to speak. I'm okay
with that but it will look different from other components who have R
builds.
c) Will EMFT start having cross-component release reviews like EMF and
MDT do? Or will we continue to have the 'each component runs its own
show and releases on its own schedule' approach we've had until now
(exceptions being OCL, QTV because they were in Callisto) ? IMHO, the
combined release would be good for enforcing regular build activity
and milestones, plus making component owners accountable to a posted
schedule. This has the extra benefit that it shows component maturity
and its consumers know when to expect final builds. Win-win.
At any rate, whatever we decide should be posted in the wiki [1] for reference.
[1]http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMFT
Nick
On 9/27/07, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cédric,
>
> The rules for components are certainly not well established. Generally a
> whole project releases at once and hence it would be a project review that
> includes all components. In fact, a lot of times a whole top level
> project will release at once so includes all subprojects as well as their
> constituent components. Since much of this comes down to terminology, some
> folks take the approach of producing a "final" build rather than a
> "release" build. There's also a such thing as a continuation review,
> according to the rules I've read, but I've never seen one of those happen.
> (I know Bjorn doesn't like unenforced rules because the weaken other
> rules.) It would be simpler for you just to produce a final build and then
> wait to do a release review of your subsequent stream as part of the
> overall Ganymede release cycle next year...
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
>
>
>
>
>
> Cédric Brun
> <cedric.brun@obeo
> .fr> To
> emft-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/27/2007 11:43 cc
> AM Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, PMC
> members mailing list
> <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject
> Re: [emft-dev] Re: [modeling-pmc]
> EMFT "Project" Compare 0.7.0
> release without a Release
> Review?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The 0.7.0 release has been removed and I'm starting the docuware for the
> review.
> I'll ask for the review soon. Though I still feel unsure about the process
> for
> incubation projects.
> Lately I've seen other component releases implying many plugins, and I
> can't
> find the corresponding release review.
> I don't deny the need of this reviews and the fact that it helps in
> building
> the community, I don't want to start a pointless debate about this or that
> component/project but I would just like to clearly understand the rules
> telling if yes, or no, a component should ask for a review.
>
> regards,
>
> Cédric
>
> Le Wednesday 12 September 2007 21:16:18 Ed Merks, vous avez écrit:
> > Bjorn,
> >
> > I'll ask Cedric to rename it as a release candidate and to schedule a
> > *component* release review before declaring a release publicly like this.
> > Please take note other component leads!
> >
> > And I'll ask Nick to looking into using ?component= instead of ?project=
> to
> > avoid potential confusion (because goodness knows things are confusing
> > enough already).
> >
> >
> > Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> > mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bjorn
> > Freeman-Benson
> > <bjorn.freeman-be
> To
> > nson@xxxxxxxxxxx> modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> > Sent by: emft-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > modeling-pmc-boun
> cc
> > ces@xxxxxxxxxxx emo@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Janet
> Campbell'"
> > <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Subject
> > 09/12/2007 02:40 [modeling-pmc] EMFT "Project"
> > PM Compare 0.7.0 release without a
> > Release Review?
> >
> > Please respond to
> > PMC members
> > mailing list
> > <modeling-pmc@ecl
> > ipse.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Modeling PMC and EMFT Developers,
> > Why is it that the EMFT Compare component has released a 0.7.0 release
> > without an official Release Review?
> > http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emft/downloads/?project=compare
> > http://www.eclipse.org/projects/previous-release-reviews.php
> >
> > All projects must have Release Reviews for M.N releases, including 0.N
> > releases. The Release Reviews are important for a number of reasons.
> >
> http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php#6_3_3_R
> >elease_Review
> >
> > Please explain how the EMFT project did not have a Release Review.
> >
> > - Bjorn
> >
> > P.S. And why does it say "?project=" on that URL when it's a component,
> not
> > a project?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bjorn
> > Freeman-Ben
> > son
> > Director,
> > Open Source
> > Process
> > Eclipse
> > Foundation
> >
> > voice: 971-327-7323 (Pacific Time)
> >
> > email: bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > modeling-pmc mailing list
> > modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > emft-dev mailing list
> > emft-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/emft-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> modeling-pmc mailing list
> modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
>
