[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
- From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:52:43 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Organization: Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
- Thread-index: AcgQy2bZogFPDr6mSP+ebx/l4qwuZAAACdNA
The main point isn't the process. It's the responsibility.
The EMO is getting awfully tired of being the only ones who seem to enforce
our processes. And then get blamed for lack of education when people don't
It is completely clear from every governance and process document in the
Eclipse Foundation that the PMC has a role to play here. If the Tools
Project *Management* Committee doesn't like my process idea, that's fine.
Figure out another way to step up to the plate. Mentor your projects, train
your projects, manage your projects, whatever. These are *your*
sub-projects, not the EMO's.
> Given that there is a process that requires a release review that folks
> aren't following (I assume because they aren't aware), I'm really not
> how an additional process will help with that. It seems many groups
> to make this same mistake at least once and Eclipse has a whole heck of
> lot of rules that tend to change rather frequently. It seems the only
> solution is better education, better mentoring, better information and
> more rules to deal with rules that aren't being followed is kind of a
> circular problem generator. But hey, that's just my opinion...
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
> @eclipse.org> "'Tools PMC mailing list'"
> Sent by: <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> tools-pmc-bounces <mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> @eclipse.org <beatmik@xxxxxxx>
> 10/17/2007 10:18
> AM RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did
> have a Release Review
> Please respond to
> Please respond to
> Tools PMC mailing
> I find it personally regrettable that the EMO seemingly needs to be the
> lone policeman in these situations. Neither Bjorn nor I enjoy the role
> traffic cop.
> The PMC is supposed to have a role to play in ensuring that individual
> projects are following the development and IP processes.
> Would it be unreasonable to ask the Tools PMC that they institute a
> whereby all projects in Tools seek PMC approval before posting a M.N
> release? If you have another proposal, that would be fine. But I hope
> get my drift J
> Mike Milinkovich
> Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
> Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
> On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:16 AM
> To: mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; beatmik@xxxxxxx
> Cc: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx; emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
> Mik, Eugene, Gail, Ian, Rob, Steffen, (cc/ Tools PMC)
> I noticed that the Mylyn web page announces the 2.1 release of Mylyn as
> September 27th. However, I do not recall having a Release Review for
> (looking at the list of completed reviews, I don't see it either). All
> major releases are required to go through a Release Review, where
> is defined as M.N. Bug fix releases (M.N.P) are exempt assuming that
> are no new features in a bug fix release. The Mylyn N&N implies that
> are new features in 2.1, so it's not just a bug fix release, right?
> Thus, either:
> There was a 2.1 Release Review and I am forgetting it (if so,
> provide a url), or
> The 2.1 Release is really a 2.0.1 Release and thus exempt (if so,
> please explain why the N&N shows new features), or
> There was no 2.1 Release Review.
> In the later case, you need to remedy that error ASAP. Anne will get
> you on
> the schedule in the absolutely next available slot. In the meantime,
> should also take the 2.1 release off the website and the download and
> update site until it has had a Release Review and IP clearance.
> - Bjorn
> [end of message]_______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list