Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
I think 1) would be a good idea if it were used to improve communication between the projects. I would certainly be interested in finding out more about what the other project are planning and if there is anything that can be leveraged by my project. As a side effect it should be possible to ensure that the processes are working properly and everyone understands their obligations. 

Greg

On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
I totally agree. I think the real issue with the Tools PMC is the lack of man power. We all have our own day jobs and the PMC work always seems to slide to the bottom of the priority list. And for some reason we have what 
feels like more than our share of rogue projects that aren't following
rules. Although maybe that's feeding itself.

In my mind there are two solutions:
1) Grow the PMC to include all the project leads and have regular calls to 
keep each other in check.
2) Find a better project structure such that the PMC is actually more
relevant. We had a similar thread recently on source control. I claim that the Tools project lacks cohesion betweens its projects making it difficult to be functional. This isn't TPTP or Modeling where the projects are all 
related somehow.
1) is probably the most practical short term. But, my gut tells me though 
that 2) is the better answer.
Failing either, I can imagine the Tools PMC imploding in on itself, not that 
anyone would notice, or maybe it already has :)

Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com


-----Original Message-----
From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:53 AM
To: 'Ed Merks'; 'Tools PMC mailing list'
Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx; beatmik@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review

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 
follow it.
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 
sure
how an additional process will help with that.  It seems many groups
need
to make this same mistake at least once and Eclipse has a whole heck of 
a
lot of rules that tend to change rather frequently. It seems the only solution is better education, better mentoring, better information and 
that
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)





             "Mike
             Milinkovich"
             <mike.milinkovich
To
             @eclipse.org>             "'Tools PMC mailing list'"
             Sent by:                  <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
             tools-pmc-bounces         <mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
             @eclipse.org              <beatmik@xxxxxxx>

cc
                                       emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
             10/17/2007 10:18
Subject
             AM                        RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did
not
                                       have a Release Review

             Please respond to
             mike.milinkovich@
               eclipse.org;
             Please respond to
             Tools PMC mailing
                   list
             <tools-pmc@eclips
                  e.org>
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 
of
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
process
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 
you
get my drift J

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx

From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
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 
of
September 27th. However, I do not recall having a Release Review for
2.1
(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
"major"
is defined as M.N. Bug fix releases (M.N.P) are exempt assuming that
there
are no new features in a bug fix release. The Mylyn N&N implies that 
there
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,
please
      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,
you
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
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc



_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc

_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc

Back to the top