Dear Lars, Ed, all,
Thanks for the fast responses. Points noted. Going ahead with RC2a then – tracked via
https://github.com/eclipse-platform/eclipse.platform.releng.aggregator/issues/1615.
Regards,
Manoj
From:
eclipse-pmc <eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Lars Vogel via eclipse-pmc <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2023 at 4:36 PM
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Requesting for RC2a Build for 4.30
I'm still +1, I have seens this issue with clients and it makes Eclipse laughable (this actually happened during a discussion if the client should switch to IntelliJ
or not and made my statements that Eclipse is heavily investing in stability
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
This message came from outside your organization.
|
|
|
I'm still +1, I have seens this issue with clients and it makes Eclipse laughable (this actually happened during a discussion if the client should switch to IntelliJ or not and made my statements that Eclipse
is heavily investing in stability and performance a bit..... laughable :-( ).
I agree the process of fixing this was not optimal / good.
I think the general feeling is +1 and you have my +1. I see some +1 from planning council too.
Dear All,
I believe this definitely deserves an explanation (or may be more than one) given the concerns raised:
The original issue raised in the thread has been brought about by some modifications made to the most recent MacOS Sonoma release. We believed that a new MacOS update would resolve the issue. A similar issue in which "Eclipse"
being wrongly displayed as "New Application" was fixed by Apple in the latest MacOS Sonoma 14.1 release. That's what we anticipated happening with this as well. Unfortunately it did not happen. Thus, in order to solve this problem, we had to come up with a
workaround. Although not a major blocking issue , the user experience may not be good from the inverted image and thus considered making a last-minute effort. We acknowledge that this was delayed. The PR was merged so as to not delay RC2a. We agree that we
should have waited, and we'll be careful going forward. We haven't promoted it yet.
Though I am not a committer here in platform, I was also involved, along-with others, in investigating this issue yesterday and hence thought of commenting – this response summarises the thought of all involved. Completely
agree with Ed that this is neither a security issue nor any functionality reducing issue. And given that there is a mixed feeling about putting this in 4.30, Its fine if it is not included in 4.30 and if we don’t create a RC2a.
PMC: Please let know your take again whether an RC2a is fine or not.
Regards,
Manoj.
I fully agree with Alex. I was surprised this morning to see that fast merge of two PR's without any chance for others to respond/review.
It is not a security or blocker issue that need an immediate reaction. This is not how RC2+ changes should
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
This message came from outside your organization.
|
|
|
I fully agree with Alex.
I was surprised this morning to see that fast merge of two PR's without any chance for others to respond/review.
It is not a security or blocker issue that need an immediate reaction.
This is not how RC2+ changes should be handled and I hope that will not happen in the future.
On Friday December 1 09:47:11 2023 (+01:00), Aleksandar Kurtakov via eclipse-pmc wrote:
I have BIG concerns about the workflow here. This is a major issue I agree but this has been neglected for months thus clearly not a regression. Beyond
the last minute a sloppy workaround is put - for a critical AND WELL KNOWN issue this should have happened before RC phase even.
Furthermore, going for respin immediately after the first reply (PMC still needs majority vote last I checked!) and without any communication with
Planning council for simrel respin is irresponsible and creates tension as further work (it takes a day for EPPs to produce!) is just created for others. What is presented as download to end users (https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/)
is the result of this extra work and the bits produced by us are not directly visible there.
So do we as a project make a statement that Simrel/EPPs doesn't matter ?
With all that said my vote is "0" ( +1 for the sake of end users and -1 for execution).
--
--
Kind regards,
Andrey Loskutov
Спасение утопающих - дело рук самих утопающих
https://www.eclipse.org/user/aloskutov
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
--
Eclipse Platform project co-lead
CEO vogella GmbH
Haindaalwisch 17a, 22395 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg: HRB 127058
Geschäftsführer: Lars Vogel, Jennifer Nerlich de Vogel
USt-IdNr.: DE284122352
Fax (040) 5247 6322, Email: lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx, Web: http://www.vogella.com
|
