[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
|
Mike,
Let me ask a simple question then. Are you suggesting that no one can
publish a release candidate build without a prior release review? That's
how I interpret your original comment but I'm sure there's a
misunderstanding. I believe Nick's suggestion to change the Mylyn build to
be a release candidate pending a release review is a good one. You don't
agree?
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
"Mike
Milinkovich"
<mike.milinkovich To
@eclipse.org> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Tools
PMC mailing list'"
10/17/2007 10:55 <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
AM cc
<beatmik@xxxxxxx>,
<emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Please respond to Subject
<mike.milinkovich RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not
@eclipse.org> have a Release Review
I am not mixing up anything. A major reason we do Release Reviews is to
ensure that all IP processes are completed.
All Eclipse projects have to comply with both the development and the IP
processes.
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:43 AM
> To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; Tools PMC mailing list
> Cc: beatmik@xxxxxxx; emo@xxxxxxxxxxx; mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Tools PMC
> mailing list'; tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
>
> Mike,
>
> I don't think there is any issue here with these builds containing
> unreviewed IP so I think you are mixing up two quite different issues.
> It's pretty clear that a release candidate has not yet been release
> reviewed, so I assume you aren't arguing that each release candidate
> must
> be release reviewed...
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mike
> Milinkovich"
> <mike.milinkovich
> To
> @eclipse.org> "'Tools PMC mailing list'"
> Sent by: <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> tools-pmc-bounces
> cc
> @eclipse.org emo@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> beatmik@xxxxxxx
> 10/17/2007 10:23
> Subject
> AM RE: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did
> not
> have a Release Review
>
> Please respond to
> mike.milinkovich@
> eclipse.org;
> Please respond to
> Tools PMC mailing
> list
> <tools-pmc@eclips
> e.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, that is not acceptable. The IP Policy explicitly states:
>
> Such Content may not be contained in any software distribution by
> any
> project denoted as a release candidate (e.g. ?RC1?) or final
> release
> (e.g. ?1.0?). All code contained in release candidates and/or
> releases must have completed the additional due diligence as
> described below?.
>
> Mike Milinkovich
> Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
> Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Nick Boldt
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:08 AM
> To: Tools PMC mailing list
> Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx; beatmik@xxxxxxx; mylyn-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] Mylyn 2.1 did not have a Release Review
>
> Rather than removing it entirely, is it also acceptable to rename it
> from
> Release (type R) to RC (type S), both in the zips and update site.xml?
> We've been told it's acceptable to do so in the past for EMFT
> components.
> Does that solution no longer apply?
>
> Nick
> On 10/17/07, Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> Mik, Eugene, Gail, Ian, Rob, Steffen, (cc/ Tools PMC)
> I noticed that the Mylyn web page announces the 2.1 release of Mylyn as
> of
> September 27th. However, I do not recall having a Release Review for
> 2.1
> (looking at the list of completed reviews, I don't see it either). All
> major releases are required to go through a Release Review, where
> "major"
> is defined as M.N. Bug fix releases (M.N.P) are exempt assuming that
> there
> are no new features in a bug fix release. The Mylyn N&N implies that
> there
> are new features in 2.1, so it's not just a bug fix release, right?
>
> Thus, either:
> There was a 2.1 Release Review and I am forgetting it (if so,
> please
> provide a url), or
> The 2.1 Release is really a 2.0.1 Release and thus exempt (if so,
> please explain why the N&N shows new features), or
> There was no 2.1 Release Review.
> In the later case, you need to remedy that error ASAP. Anne will get
> you on
> the schedule in the absolutely next available slot. In the meantime,
> you
> should also take the 2.1 release off the website and the download and
> update site until it has had a Release Review and IP clearance.
>
> - Bjorn
> --
>
>
> [end of message]
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
