Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ormf-dev] Project meta data is out of date for technology.ormf


Being pragmatic is a good thing ;-)
Regarding the number then, I suggest you go with a low 0.x number and set them as very stable releases (more so than basic milestones which are also very stable). Then focus the timing of these with solidifying areas of api, perhaps related to the layering of the architecture and dependancies you are discussing in other threads.

You will collectively know when the "Eclipse way" is engrained and when your APIs are where they need to be with regard to declaration, documentation, testing, adoption etc.. These are the typical things to focus on for graduation and perhaps your 1.0.0, and you can/will iterate to define when that is. Clearly this is your goal because you joined Eclipse ;-) So iterating toward the goal is a good way to think of it.

Thanks for your time.
________________
Harm Sluiman,
IBM DE / Technical Executive
phone:905-413-4032   fax: 4920  cell: 1-647-300-4758
mailto:sluiman@xxxxxxxxxx
Admin : Queenie Lam qlam@xxxxxxxxxx  Tie: 313-5864 1-905-413-5864



Joel Rosi-Schwartz <Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ormf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/06/2008 10:49 AM

Please respond to
The Open Requirements Management Framework project development list        <ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
The Open Requirements Management Framework project development list <ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [ormf-dev] Project meta data is out of date for technology.ormf





I would actually "improve" on B's "it would be great at some stage" and suggest that we do just that from our second iteration moving forward. I am a great believer in process and the advantages of working towards reproducibility. This (usually) comes at the price (pain) of learning to be disciplined. No time like the present to start out on that path.

Btw, the reason I say the second iteration is I see the first as pretty much binding the team and figuring out just what we want to do and can realistically tackle. This process will see a project plan dropping out at the of the iteration.

Joel


On 6 Aug 2008, at 15:31, Barbara Rosi-Schwartz wrote:

Thanks, Rich and Harm, for the faith you have in us and for wanting to push us to the limits!... :-)

I was (naively) very excited about the idea of joining the train, until I clicked on Rich's hyperlink for the "how to" and saw...  Jaw dropping experience! ;-)

After having talked it over with Joel, I feel that committing ourselves to a synchronous release with Galileo at this stage, when we have not even tried a single development cycle, is a bit too optimistic. I have read a lot about other teams miserable (but natural) failures in the first few iterations, when everything is new and untried territory.

However, having said that, it would be great at some stage to try and plan milestones that are tacitly following the Galileo release plan, without officially committing to it. If nothing else, it would be a great exercise in discipline!

B.

On 6 Aug 2008, at 02:19, Harm Sluiman wrote:


I agree with Rich.
You could even target a 0.9 for Eclipsecon timeframe and then do a minor rev. for 1.0 in sync with the train and a graduation.

This will help you drive to an early and stable milestone release of the community, and set up for good feedback and data for the graduation review.


The key to think about with the number is if you are intending to declare and support api. A 1.0 implies that declared API (if any) is now solid and supported. Often projects do a x.Y  release to stabilize and get final feedback from API adopters be for freezing


Thanks for your time.
________________
Harm Sluiman,
IBM DE / Technical Executive
phone:905-413-4032   fax: 4920  cell: 1-647-300-4758

mailto:sluiman@xxxxxxxxxx
Admin : Queenie Lam
qlam@xxxxxxxxxx  Tie: 313-5864 1-905-413-5864

Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
ormf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/05/2008 01:25 PM

Please respond to
The Open Requirements Management Framework project development list        <
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


To
The Open Requirements Management Framework project development list <ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [ormf-dev] Project meta data is out of date for technology.ormf







You could consider aligning yourselves with the Galileo release next June
(the "train").  In that case, the tentative dates are here

http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Galileo_Simultaneous_Release

The number depends upon how close you feel you are to having a 1.0 release
(exiting incubation).  If you feel the code base is near 1.0 quality, I'd
say go with 0.9 for the first.  I've noticed several projects using 0.8 or
0.7 as well (even lower).  Of course, you could be optimistic and shoot for
a 1.0.0 with Galileo, then combine your graduation review with a release
review ;)

HTH,
Rich


On 8/5/08 1:16 PM, "Barbara Rosi-Schwartz" <
Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hi Anne.
>
> We just got the reminder below. While I am fixing a number of meta
> data, the next/future release is a bit of a quandary for us at the
> moment. We are currently figuring out real resources and making up a
> plan, so for the time being we do not have a release date. Would it be
> possible to let this particular piece of information be for the time
> being?
>
> Also, we do not know what a typical release name/number is for the
> very first release of a project in incubation.  Any suggestion?
>
> Thanks as always,
> B.
>
> On 5 Aug 2008, at 18:00, portal on behalf of emo wrote:
>
>> Barbara, Joel,
>> Projects are required to keep meta data up to date using the
>> MyFoundation
>> Portal (
http://portal.eclipse.org/).  The following problems were
>> found
>> with this project's meta-data:
>>
>> * There is no next/future release of this project. All Eclipse
>> projects
>> must have a "next release" planned and scheduled.
>> * There is no 'projecturl' pointing to the project home page
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ormf-dev mailing list
>>
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ormf-dev mailing list
>
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
>


_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list

ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev

_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list

ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev

_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list

ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev

_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev


Back to the top