There's no specific requirement to produce "Slideware". We changed
this years ago. I have been accepting any reasonable PMC-approved
documentation (in a variety of file formats) for some time. The PMI
has fields for everything that you might normally put in a slide
deck.
I haven't made using the PMI for review documentation a hard
requirement (yet), but have tried to make it darned convenient for
those purposes.
FWIW, almost all of the review fields are optional. I'm generally
happy with a decent description of the release and a list of issues
(which you seem to have sorted out already).
I would like to see a little more information in the plan (including
a theme or two), but that's a battle that I'll fight later. Very
often--at least in this case--a decent description serves for
planning purposes as well.
Wayne
On 07/21/2014 02:51 PM, Scott Lewis
wrote:
On 7/21/2014 11:37 AM, Thomas Watson
wrote:
I know several RT projects
have done completely away with the slideware for releases.
For example, I just filled in the necessary information on
projects.eclipse.org for the last equinox release [1].
I've already listed our 3.9 release in the portal, and so it does
now appear (Aug 1) here:
https://projects.eclipse.org/
But I had assumed that I would still need to produce slideware for
a minor release. If this isn't the case that's obviously fine
with me.
It was pretty lightweight
and I think you will need to at least fill in that
information for your release. Is this expected to go into
Luna SR1?
Hadn't really thought about that, honestly. I
think it would mostly depend upon how quickly the EEG finalizes
the R6/RSA 1.1 spec and ct. There is some work for them
to do as I understand (e.g. merge eeg/rsa_1_ into master, final
changes/additions to CT, etc). I don't think we would want to
release 3.9 before the CT has been at least informally finalized
by eeg, although maybe I just don't understand the eeg spec/ct
release process. In any event, I don't know if that can happen
in time for Luna SR1.
One other complicating factor wrt Luna SR1, however, is this bug
[1]. It's not remote services (rather filetransfer), but whatever
is expected from ECF to deal with it should probably be a part of
ECF 3.9 also.
I would support such a
release going into SR1, but we may need to get Ian Bull to
take it forward to the planning council for approval of a
minor version upgrade. I don't think this should be an
issue.
Ok with me.
Also, you and I likely need
to coordinate the enterprise companion code CQ to make sure
it is updated with the final bits and gets approved in time
for your release.
Ok. FWIW I've been using what's latest on eeg/rsa_1_1 for
testing. As you say we can coordinate on the CQ about the final
bits.
Scott
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
|