Re: [polarsys-iwg] Release Review of PolarSys IDE 0.7 in progress

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

You need to:

* complete the review documentation [1];
* Get approval for the review from the PMC (send an email with a link to the documentation);
* get approval for the IP Log; and
* email the emo@xxxxxxxxxxx with the results of the PMC approval to make sure that I know what's going on (I usually do, but it's a good idea to make sure).

I'm not sure what I would add to the review documentation. I think it contains enough information. I generally like to see more plan content, so keep that in mind for next time.

You have submitted the IP Log, but before I can forward it to the IP team, I need to be able to review the project downloads to ensure that their contents match the IP log. Can you build and upload a milestone to the project download directory?

I've already created a review record [2].

Note that we do have a block that displays upcoming releases; we need to figure out where to place it on the website. I'll see what I can do with the /projects page.

HTH,

Wayne

[1] https://polarsys.org/projects/polarsys.3p/releases/polarsys-ide-0.7
[2] https://polarsys.org/projects/polarsys.3p/reviews/polarsys-ide-0.7-release-review

On 10/09/2013 08:56 AM, LANGLOIS Benoit wrote:

Hi Wayne,

 

OK. I understand for the source code which enables to aggregate Eclipse components.

Then, what is the new step to pass the release review?

 

Benoît

 

 

De : polarsys-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:polarsys-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Wayne Beaton
Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2013 14:40
À : polarsys-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [polarsys-iwg] Release Review of PolarSys IDE 0.7 in progress

 

Hi Benoît.

In general, code written by project committers does not require a CQ. Figure 1 in the due diligence poster [1] tends to apply in this case.

Written 100% by  
Submitting Committer
or Committer on same  
Project under the  
supervision of the PMC

"supervision of the PMC" tends to mean that the contributions are in-scope for the project and in-plan for the release. I believe that this is the case here.

The IP team does not review the entire code base for a release.

The only time that you might consider creating a CQ for a contribution made by an existing project committer is if they work offline for an extended period (i.e. the contribution is developed in private) or if you suspect that there might be some IP issues with the contribution.

HTH,

Wayne

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf

On 10/09/2013 04:18 AM, LANGLOIS Benoit wrote:

Hello,

For your information about the release of PolarSys IDE 0.7 [1]:

- I've just submitted the source code of PolarSys IDE 0.7 for release review with IPZilla (IP bugzilla) [2].

- I've also generated the IP log for PolarSys IDE 0.7 which is also part of the process for a release review [3].

The objective is to release PolarSys IDE just before EclipseCon Europe. 

I will keep you informed.

Benoît

[1] https://www.polarsys.org/projects/polarsys.3p/releases/polarsys-ide-0.7

[2] http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7633 (restricted rights)

[3] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?id=polarsys.polarsys.3p

_______________________________________________

polarsys-iwg mailing list

polarsys-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/polarsys-iwg

 

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects