Re: [rt-pmc] Should LTS pre-req the release train?

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

That makes a touch more sense...if there were a formal alternative
path to LTS that made more sense then the release train that would be
something we might choose to support.

good luck :)

jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Glyn Normington <gnormington@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Virgo participated in the Juno release train primarily in order to qualify
> for LTS and yet there seem to be few other advantages, but significant
> costs, in Virgo's participation. So I have been probing whether
> participation in the release train should be a pre-req to LTS.
>
> Andrew Ross and I agree (below) that the release train isn't the true
> requirement, but that's the way the LTS-readiness Release Management
> requirement ([1]) is currently written. The only alternative currently is to
> obtain approval by a vote of the LTS Steering Committee.
>
> I would therefore like to approach the LTS Steering Commit and request an
> alternative LTS-readiness Release Management criterion in terms that can be
> satisfied without participating in the release train.
>
> Before I do that I wanted to check that the RT PMC were comfortable with
> this request. Please reply by the end of this week if you are not.
>
> Regards,
> Glyn
> [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/LTS/LTS_Ready
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Should LTS pre-req the release train?
> Date: 12 September 2012 05:04:24 GMT+01:00
> To: Glyn Normington <gnormington@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi Glyn, Ian
>
> I had the same conversation in the context of Jetty. No surprise the same
> answer applies.
>
> Of the LTS readiness requirements, I do believe the simultaneous release
> requirements is rather soft. Pretty much agreeing with you - there are
> requirements to be on the train that we'll likely clone into the
> LTS-readiness definition but the simultaneous release in and of itself isn't
> a true requirement. That said, it is the easiest way to be picked up for
> LTS. Otherwise the Steering Committee needs to explicitly make a decision to
> bring it in.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 09/11/2012 10:08 AM, Glyn Normington wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew
>
> There has been discussion in the RT PMC and the Gemini project recently
> about the participation of runtime projects in the Eclipse release train.
> Jetty, for instance, will no longer be on the train as of the Kepler release
> because there seem to be few advantages and significant costs of joining the
> train.
>
> The main reason Virgo joined the release train was because there is interest
> in Virgo participating in the LTS programme which pre-req's the release
> train. I'm not convinced that the release train really should be a pre-req.
> to LTS. It is more likely that some of the release train requirements, such
> as availability of releases from a standard repository, are really what LTS
> requires.
>
> What's your thinking on this?
>
> I have coped Ian who is the RT PMC's representative on the Planning Council
> as we may want to raise the same question there when you've expressed your
> thoughts on the matter.
>
> Regards,
> Glyn
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>