Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cbi-dev] LTS-ready

Given that "be in Simultaneous Release" is a requirement, we do already
have a list of requirements for that, which would overlap with some of the
already named "LTS-Ready" criteria.  See
http://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements
(I know ... its kind of long and boring ... but, does contain some good
information! :)

For example, related to an LTS-ready project having builds that are
"automated, documented, and deterministic", we have, as a "should do"
option (not "must do"), under
http://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#Builds

   Projects must have a mature, stable build process: documented, scripted,
   repeatable, and executable by others on their own system. ...

Thus, it seems, "LTS-Ready" is saying in effect that is a "must do" for
LTS-Ready projects (not a "should do").  Of course, it would also be nice
if the "LTS support staff" (is there such a thing? :)  actually tried it
ahead of time and opened bugs if it didn't work ... and maybe then part of
the LTS-Readiness additional requirements would also include "no bugs that
block LTS building or running JUnit tests" or similar.

Just say'in, mostly, it'd be good to "coordinate" the lists. Perhaps,
Andrew, you could "mine" the Sim Release document for other items that
sound related? Perhaps other "should do" items become "must do" in the
context of LTS?

I hope my comments are helpful. (And, save you work, I'm not trying to
create additional :)







From:	"Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"'Common-build Developers discussion'" <cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:	01/12/2012 01:11 PM
Subject:	Re: [cbi-dev] LTS-ready
Sent by:	cbi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



David,

You're right. This should be included. It is explicitly part of our
thinking.

> -----Original Message-----
> Should another criteria to be "LTS ready" be "Be part of the yearly
> Simultaneous Release"?
>
> It seems many of the presentations about LTS sort of assume it, but it is
not
> stated.
>
> I doubt there is any technical reason this is literally required but it
would sure
> make thing easier! If not actually required, probably need at least some
> reference to it; such as "Be part of the yearly Simultaneous Release (or,
> clearly compatible with it)".
>
> Just a suggestion.


_______________________________________________
cbi-dev mailing list
cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev





Back to the top