Re: [tcf-dev] Is TCF "done" for 1.0 ?

["Tarassov, Eugene" <eugene.tarassov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Did not know I can get there that easy :-) Cool!
By "master" I meant master branch in git.
Thanks!
Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anna Dushistova
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 10:01 AM
To: TCF Development
Subject: Re: [tcf-dev] Is TCF "done" for 1.0 ?

Eugene,
tcf-nightly and tcf-maint jobs are tightened to slave6 and slave1 respectively,
both are SLES11 machines.
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/tcf-maint/configure
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/tcf-nightly/configure

Or is there any other job that is running on master?

Anna.

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Tarassov, Eugene
<eugene.tarassov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>> If we think we are "done" then no extra work after today's build until 1.0
>> is expected anyways.
>
>
>
> We are always "done". Thanks to things like "continues integration" and
> "automated testing", TCF code is always ready for release :-)
>
>
>
>> That's why I'm in favor of requiring a Bugzilla before committing.
>
>
>
> I think we can continue to trust committers to start discussion in Bugzilla
> when it is needed. At the moment, I don't see any evidence that we need to
> step up policing.
>
>
>
>
>
> We need to switch the build machine to 1.0 branch ASAP. I need to commit
> stuff that is not intended for 1.0, but I am blocked by Hudson using master
> to build the release.
>
> Martin, could you, please, help with making changes for Hudson?
>
> I don't know how to do that.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene
>
> ________________________________
> From: tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 5:00 AM
>
> To: TCF Development
> Subject: Re: [tcf-dev] Is TCF "done" for 1.0 ?
>
> Good !
>
>
>
> If we think we are "done" then no extra work after today's build until 1.0
> is expected anyways.
>
>
>
> I think it would benefit us if we discuss potential planned changes (for
> risk and appropriateness) before committing them.
>
> That's why I'm in favor of requiring a Bugzilla before committing.
>
> Hopefully none of these are needed anyways so the bureaucracy should be
> small.
>
>
>
> If we think that we still want to do little cleanups here and there without
> bugzilla then we're probably not as "done" as we think and freezing /
> branching is not quite what we want yet.
>
>
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> From: tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Stieber, Uwe
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:48 PM
> To: TCF Development
> Subject: Re: [tcf-dev] Is TCF "done" for 1.0 ?
>
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> From my POV, and if we take the build that will be procduced today night, we
> are done for 1.0 and can tag and branch (bugzilla #380447).
>
>
>
> Regarding check-in's to the 1.0 branch, I'm always for dropping bureaucracy,
> means I would vote for commit notifications only.
>
>
>
> Best regards, Uwe J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
> Sent: Freitag, 25. Mai 2012 13:18
> To: TCF Development (tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> Subject: [tcf-dev] Is TCF "done" for 1.0 ?
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Having checked TCF against the sim.release requirements, fixed and submitted
> the IP Log, fixed copyrights and abouts .
>
> . it looks to me like TCF is "done" for 1.0, pending only the release review
> documentation.
>
>
>
> Is there anything severe still missing from the code base or can we do a
> build that we call final ?
>
>
>
> I'd like to get traceability of any changes still occurring to the 1.0 code
> base from now on.
>
>
>
> Would that be satisfied by commit notifications and using the branch, or
> should we require a bugzilla entry
>
> targeted against an "1.0" target milestone for every change, for better
> traceability ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect - Development Tools, Wind River
>
> direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcf-dev mailing list
> tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tcf-dev
>
_______________________________________________
tcf-dev mailing list
tcf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tcf-dev