> > I've seen notes on this list from PMF and ECF stating their (late) intent > to join.
Scott posted his note regarding ECF last night. You know that I sleep sometimes, right? But PMF did escape my notice, so thanks for pointing that out. Wayne On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Ed Merks <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI, > > The '"Overview" block' link should point at the following page: > > https://projects.eclipse.org/releases/photon > > The sidebar looks like this: > > I've seen notes on this list from PMF and ECF stating their (late) intent > to join. > > Cheers, > Ed > > On 11.01.2018 17:59, Wayne Beaton wrote: > > For those project teams that are participating in the Photon Simultaneous > Release, please pay attention to these dates. > > December 15/2017 - Opt-in deadline > *January 22/2018 - Non participating projects will be disabled from the > build* > *February 16/2018 - CQ Submission deadline (specify that the CQ is > required for Photon)* > *May 25/2018 - IP Log submission deadline* > *June 06/2018 - Review materials due* > June 13/2018 - First round of release reviews (aim for this date if you > can) > June 20/2018 - Second (final?) round of release reviews > June 27/2018 - Eclipse Photon GA > > Note the January 22/2018 date to remove non participating projects from > the build. If any of the projects that have not opted-in are on your > critical path, you need to speak up. The list of projects that are now > considered to have dropped from the release are in the "Overview" block > <https://projects.eclipse.org/releases/p> on the right side of the Photon > release page. > > I'm concerned that Subversive in on that list. My sense is that Subversive > dropping out of the simultaneous release will have a significant negative > impact on our user community. If you have cycles to dedicate to shepherding > Subversive through the simultaneous release, please let me know ASAP. Or, > you could weigh in (or possibly volunteer) on my crazy idea > <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=527527> to consolidate > some of our mature but understaffed projects into consolidated project. > > I do realize that the IP Log review date may seem a little early. The fact > is that it does take considerable time for me to confirm that the content > being delivered matches the CQ record. > > *Note that an IP Log is a record of intellectual property for an entire > project. The purpose of the IP Log review is to confirm that the project > team understands the Eclipse IP Policy and is implementing the supporting > processes. An IP Log is not intended to reflect the intellectual property > included with any particular release.* > > So, yes, you can continue to accept contributions after submitting the IP > Log for review. No, you don't need to resubmit the IP Log for re-review if > you accept a contribution. > > If you do make significant changes to your third-party content or are > otherwise concerned that the intellectual property for the project > integrity may have been compromised after you've already submitted the log, > let me know and we'll sort it out. > > Wayne > -- > Wayne Beaton > Director of Open Source Projects > The Eclipse Foundation > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, > visithttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe > from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > -- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects The Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
