Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Maintenance builds (was Announcing a one week slip in the Mars.1 release (from 9/25 to 10/2)) 
Hi,

I don't see an easy solution but I do share Ed's concerns in this regard.

Is this just a packaging issue or an issue of content?
Aside from the Eclipse project, how many projects are actively
maintaining maintenance branches (no pun intended)?
Meaning: if we'd provide a channel for obtaining maintenance
updates only, what would be the content of the channel,
only platform updates?
Do projects with a lower offset within SimRel perhaps
care more about maintenance than "leaf" projects?

Honestly tell me: Is doing maintenance releases a relic from
the olden days in an ever accelerating world?

Stephan

On 09/24/2015 05:13 PM, Ed Willink wrote:

Hi

That makes sense but shows that we are just shifting the problem.

I see a requirement for
- regular base releases (yearly)
- maintenance releases (four monthly)
- responsive releases (four monthly)

Recognising that maintenance releases were being abused to provide responsive releases is probably good, but waving goodbye to
maintenance releases is bad.

IMHO we need all three and so long as we try to make do with two we will be in trouble with some user community. It seems wrong that
because some projects have abused the principles of maintenance, users of other projects that have observed maintenance discipline
suffer.

     Regards

         Ed Willink

On 24/09/2015 15:35, Ian Bull wrote:

Ed,

The reason for the change from Mars SR1 to Mars 1 is because this is how we've been doing it for years. Many people (EGit / JGit,
Mylyn, CDT -- to name a few) had been putting minor releases in the release train during the SRs. I ran some numbers last year,
and > 1000 Installable Units had incremented their minor version number between SR0 and SR2. This means, assuming people are
following the version guidelines, that up to 1,000 bundles had already been adding new API between SR0 and SR2.

Changing the name of the train just means we are acknowledging what was already happening.

Cheers,
Ian

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    HI

    Surely this is the inevitable consequence of Mars.1 rather than Mars SR1?

    SR1 required each component to be a safe upgrade so that exact release timing was irrelevant.

    Mars.1 is a new release so users must get to see the co-ordinated new release in one go rather than incrementally. If A.1
    pulls in B.1, but C uses B, users of C are in a mess until they get C.1.

        Regards

            Ed Willink



    On 24/09/2015 05:26, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:

        David,

            Am 23.09.2015 um 23:37 schrieb David M Williams <<mailto:david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>:
            If not obvious, this means all participants in "coordinated release train" should not make your releases visible on
            9/25, but wait until 10/2 10 AM to make them visible, and announce your official releases.

        This seem unnecessarily restrictive. I don't bother with the announcement part. However, I don't recall there is something
        in the process that requires project to wait publishing the release bits. Not making them visible could have a huge effect
        on a project's adopter community.

        -Gunnar


    _______________________________________________
    cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
    cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev




--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | <http://twitter.com/eclipsesource>http://twitter.com/eclipsesource


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10692 - Release Date: 09/24/15





_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Back to the top