You need to wait for IP Team approval of the CQ before you can
declare the service release.
Wayne
On 18/07/16 11:41 AM, Julien Viet
wrote:
Hi,
once we get the PMC approval, it is not clear wether
or not we can make our bug fix release with 4.1.3.Final or we
need to wait for the IP team to approve the CQ.
can you clarify ?
thanks
Julien
On 6
Jun 2016, at 0:57, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
Max,
You are right that the way that we're doing things does
not quite line up with the original Board resolution
that service releases require no review. This is mostly
because we don't have workflows in place in IPzilla for
a project to open a CQ on a service release, and then
have someone in the project leadership chain approve it.
We're thinking that the right workflow would be that a
committer would create the CQ on the service release,
and the project leader would approve it. In many cases
that could be the same person. Does that sound right?
+1.
Would be great if
it is the project leader actually doing the CQ he won't
need to wait for workflows to kick in but can approve it
when opening it.
Thanks,
/max
On 2016-06-01 09:51 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
On 31 May 2016, at
16:56, Janet Campbell wrote:
Hi Max,
We look for these proactively and so approval
happens very quickly. Given
the impact of waiting is very low, we ask that you
await approval.
I think the level of impact is in the eye of the
beholder.
The impact currently is that Eclipse vert.x team don't
know if they can release their version or not on the
planned date.
Thus for the vert.x team it has rather high impact not
being able to plan beyond the next few days.
Also,
while no comprehensive review is done on the
content, we do confirm that:
(a) the package is the same; (b) it is a service
release; and (c) that the
prior review did not require that the code be
modified prior to
distribution.
I hope that helps.
It does, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the
resolution to make it possible for projects
to release faster and smoother.
/max
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Rydahl Andersen [mailto:manderse@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: May-31-16 3:15 AM
To: Janet Campbell <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Julien Viet <jviet@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Runtime Project
PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Clarification needed urgently for CQ's
regarding Eclipse Vert.x
release
On 30 May 2016, at 16:55, Janet Campbell wrote:
Hi Max,
Julien was informed last week that we would review
Vert.x's
requirements on an expedited basis once he entered
the necessary CQs.
It appears that was done last Friday - thanks for
that. I don't see
any difficulty with meeting your objective.
Okey, but in the future for CQ's that are just
service release updates, if I
read and understood the resolution we should be able
to just open the CQ's
and not have to wait for a approval/review.
Can you confirm that is correct ?
Thank you,
/max
Best regards,
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Rydahl Andersen [mailto:manderse@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: May-30-16 8:40 AM
To: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Julien Viet <jviet@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Runtime Project PMC mailing list
<rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Clarification needed urgently for CQ's
regarding Eclipse
Vert.x release
Hi emo-ip-team,
(cc'ed Julien, Eclipse vert.x team lead and rt-pmc
since this affects
them directly).
Red Hat requests to have a prioritised up the CQ's
for Eclipse Vert.x
3.3 release, preferably by end of this week and
absolutely on June 8th
in preparation for release review.
The list are as follows:
- Netty 4.1.0.CR7 -> 4.1.0.Final :
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11509
- Jackson Core 2.7.3 -> 2.7.4 :
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11511
- Jackson Databind 2.7.3 -> 2.7.4 :
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11512
- Jackson 2.7.3 -> 2.7.4 :
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11513
- Netty Tcnative 1.1.33.Fork15 -> 1.1.33.Fork17
works-with :
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11514
Notice, you might find our dates too aggressive,
but as you will
notice all of these dependencies are pure service
releases (x.y.*
change only) which should actually not require any
review thus we
believe this should be trivially fulfilled.
Background:
Last year at the board meeting 2015-06-22 (minutes
here:
https://eclipse.org/org/foundation/boardminutes/2015_06_22_Minutes.pdf
)
the following resolution:
"RESOLVED, that previously approved
dependencies of Eclipse
projects can be reviewed and approved by the EMO
as follows:
a) Service releases (e.g. x.y.*, bug fixes,
security fixes) will
require no review.
b) Minor revisions (e.g. x.*.*) will require a
reduced review by the
EMO.
c) Major revisions (e.g. *.*.*) will require a
full review by the
EMO."
The upcoming release for Eclipse Vert.x 3.3 core
only have service
update to its dependencies.
Red Hat urgently request immediate approval of
these CQ's.
If that is not possible then please provide
information on how we
otherwise should interpret that resolution made on
the board close to
a year ago.
Thank you,
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
_______________________________________________
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
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223
_______________________________________________
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
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
_______________________________________________
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
--
Wayne Beaton on behalf of the Eclipse Management Organization
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|