User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
I'm fine with ditching Q3.
I agree that we should try to sync up with the Oxygen release in
June 2017.
We should have some sort of name. Should we go with "Eclipse
Science 2016 Release"?
_Christopher
On 4/5/16 4:27 AM, Jay Jay Billings
wrote:
I would like for this release to get us doing
releases in the Eclipse Way and then for us to take place in the
Oxygen Simultaneous Release next June. There's no need for us to
maintain our own release chain once we learn how it works and
can sync up with the rest of the community.
If a code name would be too tricky, we could also consider
the frequency of planned releases.
If it's just one release per year, maybe just mention the
year as in "Eclipse Science 2016" etc?
Not very original, but easy.
erwin
Op 05/04/2016 om 08:34 schreef Jonah Graham:
On 4 April 2016 at 17:41, Friedman-Hill, Ernest
<ejfried@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
To open yet another can of worms: its
always awkward and confusing when a “QN"
release ends up coming out in QN+1 . A code
name is a way to avoid this; I’d like to see
“Q3 Release” jettisoned ASAP.
+1 on ditching Q3 name, not least of all
because our current target date in October is
already Q4 :-)
--
Christopher Brooks, PMP University of California
Academic Program Manager & Software Engineer US Mail: 337 Cory Hall
CHESS/iCyPhy/Ptolemy/TerraSwarm Berkeley, CA 94720-1774
cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 707.332.0670 (Office: 545Q Cory)