Before physically withdrawing from Mars, I think Greg would need to inform the cross-project list about the plans.
There are a number of downstream projects consuming TM, so they would be immediately impacted and the top rule of the release train is “do no harm”. It’s also
possible that some downstream consumers might step up and offer contributions, in which case withdrawing from the release train might not be appropriate any more.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools,
Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stieber, Uwe
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:58 AM
To: TM project developer discussions
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Hi Greg,
Looks perfect. Thanks.
Based on this build, RSE can be installed without RSE Terminals support. For now, the existing RSE Terminals support can added from
the same repository. Next thing to do on my list is to enable our new “Launch Terminal…” context menu action and toolbar button for RSE connections as well. Once this step is completed, RSE Terminals can be removed from the repository.
How to proceed with tm.b3aggrcon in the o.e.simrel.build repository? If we withdraw from Mars, I assume this file needs to be removed
from master. And for the Luna_maintenance branch we need to update the file (see attached). I further assume that needs to be done by you Greg? Is this correct?
Thanks, Best regards, Uwe
J
The build should now be in
http://download.eclipse.org/tm/updates/3.7milestones/M1
Done. The change is merged to master.
>Once the build completes, I’ll put it in the 3.7milestones/M1 directory.
Done. Please go ahead to put things into 3.7milestones/M1. And the tm.b3aggrcon should be updated corresponding to what I had attached
earlier in this thread.
>Also, I think we should still target Luna SR2 for the 3.7 release and withdraw from Mars
Also, I think we should still target Luna SR2 for the 3.7 release and withdraw from Mars. If there are no longer any contributions (assuming Terminal has moved to TCF) then there is no reason to waste resources
on the Mars release.
Please let me know if you agree/disagree with this.
If the active development is in TCF then I think it is still better to move Terminal to that project. RSE can remain in TM and we won’t have any further releases (apart from 3.7) unless bugs are fixed or there is
additional development. Since RSE is still a requirement by at least one vendor, it seems reasonable for TM to be dormant but not archived.
Since we’re doing a 3.7 release, I’ve updated all the feature versions to 3.7.0 (https://git.eclipse.org/r/36660). Please review and
approve this change. Once the build completes, I’ll put it in the 3.7milestones/M1 directory.
As always there are multiple options here … archiving the TM project and moving RSE and Terminal to new hosting projects. Probably
PTP has an interest in hosting RSE like they do with the Remote Services (o.e.remote)? Or we don’t archive the TM project and move the Terminal to TCF, leaving the TM project with a single committer. Or we leave things as they are J.
In any case, I need the changes which got committed to master, which is the assumed branch leading to TM 3.7, released. Either for
Mars or for Luna SR2. The natural release train for a TM 3.7 would be probably Mars. But I do not have any preference in regards to this as long as we get it out.
Hi Martin,
Then on that bases, I have to say -1 as we will still need TM for maintenance releases.
____________________________________
David McKnight
Phone: 905-413-3902 , T/L: 969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail: D1/YFY/8200/TOR
____________________________________
<image001.gif>"Oberhuber, Martin" ---11/18/2014 07:55:46 AM---Hi David, As far as I know, "archiving a project" means also putting the repository into read-only s
From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: TM project developer discussions <tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/18/2014 07:55 AM
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Sent by: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David,
As far as I know, “archiving a project” means also putting the repository into read-only state.
There’s no more project any more, no more committers, no more change to the codebase.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind
River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
While we won't be needing future TM releases (i.e. post Luna), IBM still had products that need servicing for older releases (i.e. RSE 3.4.x and RSE 3.2.x). Backports
for those releases typically involve updating the master stream as well. Will this archiving involve the older streams?
____________________________________
David McKnight
Phone: 905-413-3902 , T/L: 969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail: D1/YFY/8200/TOR
____________________________________
<image001.gif>Greg Watson ---11/13/2014 09:53:02 AM---I’m fine with this if we have everyone’s agreement. Committers on the project are: • Anna Dushistov
From: Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: TM project developer discussions <tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/13/2014 09:53 AM
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Sent by: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I’m fine with this if we have everyone’s agreement. Committers on the project are:
• Anna Dushistova
• David McKnight
• Greg Watson
• Kevin Doyle
• Martin Oberhuber
• Michael Scharf
• Uwe Stieber
Assuming Martin and Uwe have already agreed, I’d like to have a +1 from Anna, David, Kevin, and Michael before proceeding. I don’t think we can proceed unless we have at least a majority of committers voting +1.
If we go ahead with archiving TM, I suggest we use Luna SR2 for the final release and withdraw from Mars.
Here’s a summary:
1. Announce TM change proposal to cross-project
a. Final release of TM 3.7 with Luna SR2
b. TM to withdraw from Mars
2. Agreement from TCF project to host Terminal
3. Approval from PMC for restructuring review
4. Restructuring review to move Terminal to TCF
5. Approval from PMC for termination review
6. Termination review
7. TM is archived
Is this agreed? Anybody not in agreement?
Thanks,
Greg
On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Oberhuber, Martin <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ok.
If the plan of archiving TM solidifies, we’ll need to inform cross-project about that.
Greg are you going to do that ?
I could imagine that there will be a couple downstream projects who won’t be happy about TM being archived, so better announce early.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
1. Terminal
is moved from TM to TCF (that’s where the active committers are)
2. We need one more release of TM (Luna SR2 or Mars) such that we can clean up the dependencies on the Terminal
3. After that, TM can be archived as a project.
Do the committers agree ?
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stieber, Uwe
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:03 AM
To: TM project developer discussions
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Hi Greg,
Well, I can speak only for Terminal and the Terminal is definitely under active development. There might be just 2 active committers left, myself and Martin Oberhuber from time to time, but we still do changes and we still need releases. I would be OK to move
out the Terminal from the TM project but the proposed common project where things like the Terminal could live does not exist yet. I’m also fine with moving the Terminal widget to the TCF project container, but that’s something Martin Oberhuber needs to decide.
For the Terminal, the main complains are not necessarily bugs at this point of time, the main complains are about the fact that you do have multiple Terminal views in Eclipse once RSE is installed. 2 views are at least deprecated and only the “Terminals” view
provided from the TCF project is maintained and where new features requested by the users are added. We have to get the 2 other Terminal views out of Eclipse to stop the user confusion. The plan for doing this is outlined below, but this work does have some
effect on EPP packages. I can do everything outlined below, but I don’t know how to get the EPP packages updated to include the correct features.
The cleanup of the multiple Terminal views should happen for the Mars release.
Regarding the committer meetings, at least for me time is limited and discussing things here instead of a shared conference call is easier to manage.
Thanks, Best regards, Uwe J
From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Watson
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2014 23:01
To: TM project developer discussions
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Master branch is TM 3.7?
Hi Uwe,
I’m not sure of the plans at this point. I’ve asked this list about the 3.6 version a couple of times but received no reply. I’ve also invited everyone to the PTP developers conference call to discuss plans, but no one from TM ever attended. At this point,
I’m assuming that the current release is the final release for TM.
I’m not a developer on the project, so I don’t know what anyone’s plans are unless they let me know. Also, developer’s will need to step up and update the project plan, documentation, and anything else that needs to be done. I can fix the outline of the plan,
but someone else will need to fill in the details. Finally, we need people to test the builds before they are released, or we can’t say we’re meeting Eclipse quality. This didn’t seem to be happening for the SR1 release.
Regards,
Greg
On Oct 30, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stieber, Uwe <Uwe.Stieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Can you confirm that I’m right in assuming that the master branch is leading to the TM 3.7 release? When will it be released? I’ve checked the TM project pages under eclipse.org/tm,
but this pages are not up to date.
If master is leading to the 3.7 release, I would like to change at least the TM Terminal feature version numbers accordingly. Also I want to tackle a few Terminal related releasing issues we keep pushing ahead of us for a long time now. Not sure if you need
to announce them in some project lead meeting.
1. Deprecation of unused or no
longer supported features
a. Take out the o.e.tm.terminal.view
and the o.e.tm.terminal.local from the build and repositories
b. Move the source of this features to terminal/deprecated folder to keep the source around for reference
c. Remove the o.e.tm.terminal.core.sdk feature as without the terminal.view feature, the usual SDK feature is the same as the core.sdk feature
2. Work on replacement for org.eclipse.rse.terminal
feature
a. Remove this feature from the
org.eclipse.rse feature
b. Create an replacement providing the same entry points from the RSE System Explorer as the org.eclipse.rse.terminal
plug-in does but use the newer and maintained TCF Terminals view. The new RSE terminal feature will be provided by the TCF project like the TCF based file system and process RSE contributions.
All effort is related to address the many complains about having up to 3 different terminals views available in Eclipse. Final goal is to bundle all terminal related effort, bugfixing and feature development, into the superior TCF Terminals view.
Best regards, Uwe J
_______________________________________________
tm-dev mailing list
tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-dev
_______________________________________________
tm-dev mailing list
tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-dev
|