Hi Erwin.
Now the question is how to link that to the
CQ process?
- Formally there are no new Ptolemy release versions to expect in
the coming months. We'll be working with the bundles packaged from
the Ptolemy trunk, where the only version differentiation would be
in the qualifier.
- Do we update the attachments to the original CQs with the latest
contents when we do a synchronization with Ptolemy?
- Or do we cancel the original CQs and need to create new ones
every time?
I recommend that you ask these questions directly on the
corresponding CQs so that IP Team representatives can see them in
context.
- How would one or the other option reflect
on the ability to maintain our automated build (that is working
now since we've got a checkin GO for the original CQs)?
The answer to this depends on the answer to the above questions. The
short version is that you must build with what has been approved by
the IP Team (either parallel IP check-in or full approval).
- And how would this impact the ultimate
goal, i.e. to get the CQs approved in time for our Autumn Science
IWG release?
That the library is a moving target makes things interesting. At
some point, I assume (depending on the answers you get to the above
questions), you'll have to lock down on a particular version of the
libraries. I suggest that you inform the IP Team (again, on the CQ)
of the anticipated release date and ask for their opinion with
regard to when to lock things down.
HTH,
Wayne
On 31/03/16 07:43 AM, erwindl0 wrote:
Dear all,
I'm resending this, as I did not get any response yet and the
outcome could have a large impact on our work in the coming
months, and the feasibility of joining the Science Autumn release.
Could you advise on the questions below?
many thanks,
erwin
-------- Doorgestuurd bericht --------
For the Triquetrum project, there's
an extra potential issue/complexity related to CQ management.
Our main non-eclipse dependency is the Ptolemy II project of
UC Berkeley.
We're building Triquetrum on the dvp trunk of Ptolemy, which
is working towards a v11 release, but without expecting that
release to happen soon.
Another thing is that Ptolemy's default delivery is not in the
form of OSGi bundles.
During the Triquetrum incubation, the two projects are
collaborating to facilitate the integration. This implies :
- defining the right bundles and maintaining/adapting their
contents in the Ptolemy repository as needed for Triquetrum
- being able to take in updates from the Ptolemy core
development work itself to ensure that once Triquetrum
delivers, we're using up-to-date Ptolemy dependencies.
Now the question is how to link that to the CQ process?
- Formally there are no new Ptolemy release versions to expect
in the coming months. We'll be working with the bundles
packaged from the Ptolemy trunk, where the only version
differentiation would be in the qualifier.
- Do we update the attachments to the original CQs with the
latest contents when we do a synchronization with Ptolemy?
- Or do we cancel the original CQs and need to create new ones
every time?
- How would one or the other option reflect on the ability to
maintain our automated build (that is working now since we've
got a checkin GO for the original CQs)?
- And how would this impact the ultimate goal, i.e. to get the
CQs approved in time for our Autumn Science IWG release?
thanks
erwin
Op 22/03/2016 om 04:05 schreef Wayne Beaton:
Hi Christopher.
Projects can do releases while in incubation.
All CQs for code/libraries that are included in the release
bits must be closed/approved by the IP Team prior to the
release.
In the time leading up to the release, you can and should
distribute milestone builds that includes code/libraries that
the IP team has granted checkin approval for. These are not
official releases, and should be annotated as such (e.g.
0.7M2).
I recommend that the Science Working Group make a master list
of all the open CQs that are required for the coordinated
autumn release that we can present to the IP Team along with
your last question. This should be a relatively easy query if
we have a list of participating projects. Giving the IP Team a
clear picture of what needs to be accomplished is the best way
of getting that question answered.
By way of background for those readers who are not involved in
the Science Working Group's communications: several of the
Science projects have decided to do a coordinated release in
the fall (along the lines of what the Planning Council does
with the Simultaneous Release)
HTH,
Wayne
On 21/03/16 07:04 PM, Christopher
Brooks wrote:
Triquetrum is using the Parallel IP Process.
We have open CQs for third party material:
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10439
- diva
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10440
- ptolemy.actor.gui
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10441
- ptolemy.actor.lib
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10442
- ptolemy.core
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10443
- ptolemy.sdf
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10444
- ptolemy.gui
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10445
- ptolemy.moml
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10446
- org.ptolemy.commons
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856
- ptolemy.domains.process
We would like to participate in the Science/Industry Working
Group Autumn 2016 release, which is scheduled for October
21, 2016.
Can do an interim release with open CQs while remaining in
incubation?
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Incubation_Phase
says:
Interim Releases. Incubation Phase projects
may make releases. All major and minor releases must go
through a Release
Review.
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Reviews
says:
Intellectual
Property
Before you can consider a Release Review, all of the
relevant CQs must be approved by the Eclipse Legal team.
We cannot schedule a Review before the Legal team has
completed their work. If you are waiting for CQs, please
review where your CQs are, and when they are scheduled
to be reviewed, in the IP
team work queue.
The above indicates to me that we need to have the CQs
approved before release review. Does approved mean closed?
If we need to have these CQs closed, is it feasible to have
them closed by the end of September so that we can schedule
a release review?
Thanks,
_Christopher
--
Christopher Brooks, PMP University of California
Academic Program Manager & Software Engineer US Mail: 337 Cory Hall
CHESS/iCyPhy/Ptolemy/TerraSwarm Berkeley, CA 94720-1774
cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 707.332.0670 (Office: 545Q Cory)
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton on behalf of the Eclipse Management Organization
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|