Re: [orbit-dev] Orbit's Plan for Galileo SR1

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we are almost ready ... CQs approved, bundles in builds ... but, I 
was off a day in previous note. Instead of Platform needing it _on_ 8/26, 
they need it _before_ 8/26. 
In otherwords, we should deliver, rename, and promote by EOD Tuesday, 
25th. Today! 

>From what I've heard, that's possible, so let me know if there's something 
that still needs to be done (besides the dojo bundle fix). 

Thanks, 





From:
DJ Houghton <DJ_Houghton@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
08/20/2009 11:49 AM
Subject:
Re: [orbit-dev] Orbit's Plan for Galileo SR1
Sent by:
orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



This sounds good, thanks David.

The CQs for the ICU JARs have been approved and I will release them on 
Monday. I am just awaiting a time zone data refresh that we would like to 
include. I have updated the Platform bug with this information.

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=276313


David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>


David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
08/19/2009 12:09 PM 

Please respond to
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>




To

Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc


Subject

[orbit-dev] Orbit's Plan for Galileo SR1





There is at least one bundle (javax.activation) that has changed from the 
last Recommended Build and should be in SR1: 
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=279519

Plus, I know the platform wants to include an important performance fix in 

ICU bundle. 

Are there any other changes that have to get into the Galileo maintenance 
release? 
If so, please list or point to bugs that explain why its of "maintenance 
release importance" (you know, we don't have a formal policy in Orbit, but 

normally only "major" bugs are worth the risk of changing things). 



I'd like to tentatively propose that we produce an R-build on 8/26 ... 
just a day or so before the Platform needs it for their SR1 RC2 build. 
That way, it would be a true "release candidate" (as it should be). 

The only problem is that the IP Staff has said they may not be able to 
fit-in the IP review and approval by that 8/26 date. 
So, I suggest we sort of build in "one week slip dates". That is, if by 
8/26, the IP staff has not yet approved (and hence not in CVS, to build) 
then we'd slip to the next date ... first 9/2, then 9/9. If not done by 
then ... then, I don't think we could slip further. To summarize, 
depending on when ICU gets approved and in a build: 

Goal: 8/26
Fallback: 9/2
Final Chance: 9/9 



What I would like to do, when we produce the R-build, is to just rename 
whatever the latest I-build is at the time.

This would "pull in" 3 new bundles: 

plugin@org.dojotoolkit,1.1.0=v200907071809
plugin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,1.5.4=CVS,tag=v200908052355
plugin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.source,1.5.4=CVS,tag=v200908052355

But I don't think that's a problem for Orbit ... since we are just 
producing a Recommended Build ... what actually goes into Galileo SR1 is 
up to the Projects. Those three new ones (and the javax.activation bundle) 

are the only changes since last R-build. 

Does anyone have any better suggestions? Comments? Concerns? Anything else 

need to be fixed/added in Orbit before SR1? 



_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev
[attachment "pic03467.gif" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] 
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev