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)
--
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)