[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: Re-spin process
|
Not even sure if I'd go with "disappointed." Unless you live in a happy
world where software can be perfectly verified and never has bugs in
releases, then I think the focus on "ready or not" for Europa is a
disservice to the entire community that made a great effort to produce it.
I see the main point of this discussion being whether the Europa site
itself should be updated, or whether post-release updates should be handled
on the local project update site as suggested below. I can construct
arguments for each side, and personally am willing to follow the consensus
on this issue. The confusion comes from differing assumptions around this
question.
Regards,
John Graham
Eclipse Data Tools Platform PMC Chair
Staff Software Engineer, Sybase, Inc.
http://dataplat.blogspot.com/
Doug Schaefer
<DSchaefer@xxxxxx
m> To
Sent by: Cross project issues
cross-project-iss <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.o
ues-dev-bounces@e rg>
clipse.org cc
Subject
07/09/2007 10:41 RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re:
AM Re-spin process
Please respond to
Cross project
issues
<cross-project-is
sues-dev@eclipse.
org>
O.K., appalled is a strong word. Disappointed is probably better.
At any rate, the CDT plan, if we needed a respin, was to put the bits onto
the CDT update site. Users would get the main bits from Europa and then, if
necessary, the update could come from the CDT site without affecting the
Europa bits. By asking for a re-spin, you are asking all projects to
maintain their staging areas. That just opens the door to potential build
issues as most of those projects have now moved on.
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn
Freeman-Benson
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 11:15 PM
To: Cross project issues; eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: Re-spin process
While not as appalled as Doug, I do agree that re-spinning brings up the
question of whether the bits were truly ready for release. Of course there
are always bugs (sigh), but part of the Europa-mature release process was
to limit the set of those to the Fall and Winter Maintenance Releases.
At the same time, I like John's concept of the open and closed streams.
I am appalled at the idea of re-spinning a release like this. The idea of
these coordinated releases was to show off the maturity of the processes at
Eclipse. Re-spin is not that.
It even makes me wonder, if you require a re-spin at this point, did you
truly meet the requirements for joining Europa? I’d say no, because the
only real requirement was to have your bits ready at the same time as
everyone else.
Having said all that, the "moving target" approach does have its uses, both
for testing and for those who want to live on the bleeding edge and are
willing to accept the associated risks. I suggest that we carefully
distinguish "open" release train streams from "closed" ones. The streams
for the Ganymede release, and the "Europa Fall Update" are currently open.
The process bar should be low for projects that want to contribute new
contents into those streams. Once a release occurs, with all its
associated testing, coordination, process and legal reviews, that release
stream should be considered "closed". I believe there should be a very high
bar for changes to the release train after the release date, or we risk
negating all the coordinated effort that goes on to make the release
happen. _______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
