Re: [rt-pmc] Planning Council

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

How do you inform the embedded adopter of the change?

Wayne

On 07/22/2011 11:50 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:38, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This falls into EDP territory which is the domain of the Architecture
>> Council.
> hm, ok thanks
>
>> The formal process is to open a bug against Community/Architecture Council.
>>
>> FWIW, the current rule is that you need a release review for any release
>> that adds functionality. There is a bit of grey area in what constitutes
>> "adds functionality" that is left to the discretion of the PMC.
>> Generally this tends to mean additions or changes to established API.
> adds functionality is a very nebulous line to draw, as is the change
> to established API, particularly with a project like jetty
>
> If we followed the traditional osgi packaging structure then I can
> easily see what would constitute a change in API, anything that is not
> under *internal* packaging.  We don't though and I don't foresee us
> doing that ever, at least not until something like jetty9 would we see
> any sort of change like that.  What we do now is if is something we
> change is what we would commonly think an embedded user might use then
> we basically minor rev it, 7.4 to 7.5 for instance because of some
> changes to the session manager interfaces and abstract objects.  But
> this isn't really new functionality so what I was hoping for was a
> green light in terms of releasing 7.5 without having to do a full on
> release docuware and review.  Now, if I get a couple of the CQ's
> approved I am waiting on then I can see new functionality and a 7.5
> that warranted a traditional release review.
>
> Wayne, so based on that description would I be clear in releasing 7.5
> without a release review unless I get the CQ's approved by then which
> puts me in more traditional territory.  I think the switch from 7.2 to
> 7.3 or the one to 7.4 was a case like this.
>
> cheers,
> jesse
>
>> On 07/22/2011 11:29 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>> *bit tongue in cheek here*
>>>
>>> I know that Glyn is hot on the topic of tracking down specific release
>>> requirements as they relate to rt projects..
>>>
>>> I want to bring up a proposal for modifying the requirements as
>>> related to release reviews.  In a nutshell, I would like to provide
>>> for projects like jetty such that we only need a release review when
>>> there is a change in IPLOG as opposed to arbitrary minor version
>>> increases like 7.4 to 7.5...
>>>
>>> in a week and a half is the first planning council meeting I'll attend
>>> so perhaps I ought to not be the focus of discontent my very _first_
>>> call but I figured I would toss out a mail to this list asking for
>>> thought on
>>>
>>> a) is this even appropriate for the planning council
>>>
>>> b) is there a format for writing proposals to the planning council
>>> that I haven't found/seen?
>>>
>>> c) is there anything other rt projects would like me to keep an eye on
>>> with regards to this group?
>>>
>>> d) anything I ought to know? skeletons in the closet for key powerful
>>> members I can use to bend them to our will? :)
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> jesse
>>>
>>> --
>>> jesse mcconnell
>>> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rt-pmc mailing list
>>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>> --
>> Wayne Beaton
>> The Eclipse Foundation
>> Twitter: @waynebeaton
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rt-pmc mailing list
>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc

-- 
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton