The PMC has approved the review materials, and the IP Team has
approved the IP Log. With regard to the EDP, DLTK 5.1 is good-to-go.
I will update http://projects.eclipse.org/releases/luna to indicate
that DLTK 5.0 is included in Luna.
I'll leave it to the project, PMC, and Planning Council to determine
what we're going to do for SR-1.
Wayne
On 06/13/2014 10:37 AM, David M
Williams wrote:
I take this as
"things are fine, as
they are in staging". Not sure how this effects "release
reviews",
Wayne, but what is in staging now, is the same thing that was in
Kepler
SR2 (i.e. already released).
At least, going by feature
names/versions
and bundle names/versions. The following are the feature
names/versions:
org.eclipse.dltk.core_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
org.eclipse.dltk.core.index_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
org.eclipse.dltk.itcl_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
org.eclipse.dltk.rse_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
org.eclipse.dltk.ruby_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
org.eclipse.dltk.tcl_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
org.eclipse.dltk.xotcl_5.0.0.201306060709.jar
I'll also note that in the 5.1
"contribution
attempt" there's an error that invalidates the aggregation build
...
something about a feature missing that is named in some
category.
It seems clear we should go with
what
we have, for Luna, and if the DLTK project wants to do something
else for
Luna SR1, they need to actively work with the "Simultaneous
Release"
projects that make use of them, and participate on a regular,
predictable
basis, so adequate testing, etc. can be done. I also suspect
(though, know
nothing of details) that if there have been "bug fixes only"
that "5.0.1" would be more appropriate for Luna SR1, and if
there
are new features or APIs, that Mars would be more appropriate.
There may be many other questions
about
the viability of the DLTK project as a whole (given lack of
activity and
communication) but, I think for Luna, we know what to do.
I will plan on reverting the
commit
in Luna, just to be clear on our plans for Luna, and opened Bug 437381
to track that.
If DLTK project wants to
participate
in Luna SR1 or Mars, they will be expected to be more active,
timely, and
communicative.
From:
Simon Bernard
<sbernard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
06/13/2014 05:28 AM
Subject:
Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev]
DLTK in Luna RC4
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
LDT (Koneki) depends on DLTK.
We never test it on DLTK 5.1. (We never found a repository to
test it,
it seems available since June 11th or 12th)
There no problem for us to go with DLTK 5.0. It seems more
reasonable.
Some threads to show we try to avoid that :
- https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dltk-dev/msg02317.html
- https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg10499.html
- https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dltk-dev/msg02324.html
Le 12/06/2014 21:31, Wayne Beaton a écrit :
Greetings folks.
We noticed that DTLK updated their aggregation file only just
this week
to point at their 5.1 bits. Too late, I'm afraid to make it into
the RC4
build (which currently includes their 2013 "5.0" bits) and EPP
packages.
Which Luna projects consume DLTK? (PDT and who else?)
Have you been testing on DLTK 5.1?
Are you good-to-go with DTLK 5.0?
What are our options?
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The
Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse
Projects
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|
