> If SR0 is treated differently, do you know/remember why? Maybe I'm missing your "real question", but SR0 is a "new release", by definition. Everyone expects "new features" there, and the release reviews are scheduled "as a whole" in advance, and there are deadlines for IP Reviews, etc., established well in advance of the actual release ... and we all hope everyone does have a "rampdown" plan even for SR0, though we don't police it.
But, SR1 and SR2 are still defined to be Service Releases, and if someone has enough "new things" that it requires yet another release review, seems reasonable it be done well in advance since most are not expecting new features or minor upgrades, only service field upgrades. Its a "balancing act" to allow projects to add new features to a service release, yet still the kind of quality and stability users and adopters expect from a service release. I hope that gets at what you were asking. Let me know if I'm missing your question. From: Igor Fedorenko <[email protected]> To: Cross project issues <[email protected]>, Date: 08/15/2013 03:02 AM Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Question on Kepler SR1 release review Sent by: [email protected] I certainly missed this decision (and no, as a small opensource project m2e does not have "our" planning counsel representative). Does the same "release one month prior to RC1" rule apply to SR0 in June? If SR0 is treated differently, do you know/remember why? -- Regards, Igor On 2013-08-14 7:39 PM, David M Williams wrote: > Its "new" as of last April. > > And, by all means ... fix bugs and then submit a maintenance release for > final version (which would not need a "new release"). > > "Released", in this context, means the formal Eclipse process of having > been through the required release review which is always required of new > releases. > > > > > From: Doug Schaefer <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, > Date: 08/14/2013 11:33 AM > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Question on Kepler SR1 release > review > Sent by: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Yeah actually that doesn't make sense. Why have the release sit around > for a month instead of fixing bugs in it right to the end of the SR? > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > *From: *Igor Fedorenko > *Sent: *Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:24 AM > *To: *[email protected] > *Reply To: *Cross project issues > *Subject: *Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Question on Kepler SR1 release > review > > > > Is "new releases must be released a month before SR RC1" a new requirement? > > -- > Regards, > Igor > > On 2013-08-14 6:53 PM, David M Williams wrote: > > I'll take this topic as a good segue to summarize Planning Council's > > view on "more frequent releases" and "including new features in SRs". > > I'll try to keep in brief, but anyone is welcome to read my full notes > > of meeting at _http://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/August_7_2013_ > > > > First, it was recognized our "slow pace" was not satisfying all projects > > and adopters, but ... > > Second, it was satisfying most, so the short answer is status quo > > continues ... though we committed to continue the discussion for the > > long term. Its just that no one knew of any "easy answers" that could be > > implemented easily, without requiring more work from everyone. > > > > The "status quo" is captured in our current policy statement, at > > > _http://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_FAQ#Can_a_new_project_or_feature_join_a_Simultaneous_Service_Release_.28SR1_or_SR2.29.3F_ > > > > > > In fact, it turns out several strategic adopting members were surprised > > we allow new features at all ... and wanted the emphasis to stay on bug > > fixes and quality improvements in the SRs, and to not "be surprised" by > > new features. So, we humbling ask projects to announce and summarize > > here on cross-project list when they are adding new features and when > > "minor" versions increment. We definitely want to allow projects to add > > new features when they need to, based on the needs of their community > > and adopters ... but don't want to encourage "experiments" with new > > features that might not be fully baked yet. So, we'll stick with the > > restrictions that "new releases" must be released a month before RC1 and > > "be in" RC1, as our policy states. > > > > This does not prevent any project from having a new release anytime you > > want .... but might mean you can not contribute it to "Simultaneous > > Release maintenance". > > > > Hope this helps adds clarity to the current rules for "Simultaneous > > Release maintenance". > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > From: Gunnar Wagenknecht <[email protected]> > > To: Cross project issues <[email protected]>, > > Date: 08/14/2013 08:55 AM > > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Question on Kepler SR1 release > > review > > Sent by: [email protected] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Am 14.08.2013 um 02:41 schrieb Matthias Sohn <[email protected]>: > > > AFAIK if you want to release a pure maintenance release (only > > bugfixes, no new features) > > > you don't need a release review, if you want to ship new features you > > need the review. > > > > Yes, this is correct. Technically, a pure maintenance (aka. service) > > releases changes only the 'x' of 'a.b.x' version string. > > > > -Gunnar > > > > -- > > Gunnar Wagenknecht > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > _https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > _https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_ > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected]_ > __https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev________________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
