[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [eclipse.org-planning-council] Neon.3 Update Problems

On 03/31/2017 12:28 PM, Ed Merks wrote:

Mickael,

I believe this kind of direction should be given by the planning council.  What you're stating is your opinion (or a suggestion for a change in the long established direction), but we've already heard David's opinion on this, and it was one of caution.  Having managed release trains for years, I put a heck of a lot of weight in David's informed opinions.  So at this point I don't feel we (you) should not be prescribing a new solution to replace the old solution, not until the planning council has determined and agreed that this new solution does in fact solve enough old problems without introducing more new problems compared to the old solution.   Of course I have no issue with discussing new approaches, but best we consider carefully any new path we take, and best we not prescribe a solution before its fully baked.  In other words, I'm cautioning you not to draw a final conclusion.

Right, I should have put some pre-amble to my answer: this is a recommendation of mine, which is compliant with the current SimRel requirements IIRC; it's not something that is to be taken as a "solution" or a "rule".
Let's continue discussing alternatives (so the following is still not something to be perceived as a solution neither): I also agree with Gunnar and the point he mentions IMHO invalidates most of the reason why including 3rd-party bundles in features can be better than not doing it and letting p2 resolve them. We should establish a list of pros and cons of both approaches to visualize better which one has the most benefits and introduce the least confusion.
Cheers,
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer for Red Hat Developers
My blog - My Tweets