Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [rt-pmc] Clarification needed urgently for CQ's regarding Eclipse Vert.x release

On 6 Jun 2016, at 0:57, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

Max,

You are right that the way that we're doing things does not quite line up with the original Board resolution that service releases require no review. This is mostly because we don't have workflows in place in IPzilla for a project to open a CQ on a service release, and then have someone in the project leadership chain approve it.

We're thinking that the right workflow would be that a committer would create the CQ on the service release, and the project leader would approve it. In many cases that could be the same person. Does that sound right?

+1.

Would be great if it is the project leader actually doing the CQ he won't need to wait for workflows to kick in but can approve it when opening it.

Thanks,
/max


On 2016-06-01 09:51 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
On 31 May 2016, at 16:56, Janet Campbell wrote:

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.

I think the level of impact is in the eye of the beholder.

The impact currently is that Eclipse vert.x team don't know if they can release their version or not on the planned date.

Thus for the vert.x team it has rather high impact not being able to plan beyond the next few days.

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.

It does, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the resolution to make it possible for projects
to release faster and smoother.

/max

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



/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223

_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc


/max
http://about.me/maxandersen


Back to the top