Re: [rt-pmc] Clarification needed urgently for CQ's regarding Eclipse Ve

["Janet Campbell" <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Max,

We look for these proactively and so approval happens very quickly.  Given
the impact of waiting is very low, we ask that you await approval.  Also,
while no comprehensive review is done on the content, we do confirm that:
(a) the package is the same; (b) it is a service release;  and (c) that the
prior review did not require that the code be modified prior to
distribution.

I hope that helps.

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Rydahl Andersen [mailto:manderse@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: May-31-16 3:15 AM
To: Janet Campbell <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx; Julien Viet <jviet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Runtime Project
PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Clarification needed urgently for CQ's regarding Eclipse Vert.x
release

On 30 May 2016, at 16:55, Janet Campbell wrote:

> Hi Max,
>
> Julien was informed last week that we would review Vert.x's 
> requirements on an expedited basis once he entered the necessary CQs.  
> It appears that was done last Friday - thanks for that.  I don't see 
> any difficulty with meeting your objective.

Okey, but in the future for CQ's that are just service release updates, if I
read and understood the resolution we should be able to just open the CQ's
and not have to wait for a approval/review.

Can you confirm that is correct ?

Thank you,
/max

>
> Best regards,
> Janet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Rydahl Andersen [mailto:manderse@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: May-30-16 8:40 AM
> To: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Julien Viet <jviet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Runtime Project PMC mailing list 
> <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Clarification needed urgently for CQ's regarding Eclipse 
> Vert.x release
>
> Hi emo-ip-team,
>
> (cc'ed Julien, Eclipse vert.x team lead and rt-pmc since this affects 
> them directly).
>
> Red Hat requests to have a prioritised up the CQ's for Eclipse Vert.x
> 3.3 release, preferably by end of this week and absolutely on June 8th 
> in preparation for release review.
>
> The list are as follows:
>
> - Netty 4.1.0.CR7 -> 4.1.0.Final         :
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11509
> - Jackson Core 2.7.3 -> 2.7.4        :
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11511
> - Jackson Databind 2.7.3 -> 2.7.4    :
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11512
> - Jackson  2.7.3 -> 2.7.4 :
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11513
> - Netty Tcnative 1.1.33.Fork15 -> 1.1.33.Fork17 works-with :
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11514
>
> Notice, you might find our dates too aggressive, but as you will 
> notice all of these dependencies are pure service releases (x.y.* 
> change only) which should actually not require any review thus we 
> believe this should be trivially fulfilled.
>
> Background:
> Last year at the board meeting 2015-06-22 (minutes here:
> https://eclipse.org/org/foundation/boardminutes/2015_06_22_Minutes.pdf
> )
> the following resolution:
>
> "RESOLVED, that  previously  approved  dependencies  of  Eclipse 
> projects can  be reviewed and approved by the EMO as follows:
> a) Service releases (e.g. x.y.*, bug fixes, security fixes) will 
> require no review.
> b) Minor revisions (e.g. x.*.*) will require a reduced review by the 
> EMO.
> c) Major revisions (e.g. *.*.*) will require a full review by the 
> EMO."
>
> The upcoming release for Eclipse Vert.x 3.3 core only have service 
> update to its dependencies.
> Red Hat urgently request immediate approval of these CQ's.
>
> If that is not possible then please provide information on how we 
> otherwise should interpret that resolution made on the board close to 
> a year ago.
>
> Thank you,
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen


/max
http://about.me/maxandersen