A service release never requires a review (nor does it require an IP Log
review). So, yes, just create a release record and you're good-to-go.

IMHO a release that only updates from the EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 is a service
release. I, naturally, defer to a project's PMC if they have a different
opinion.

Wayne

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:38 AM Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the new bits being contributed are just a
> service release then no review is required, only the release record,
> correct?
>
> On 09.02.2020 18:15, Wayne Beaton wrote:
>
> Updating to the EPL-2.0 (and, by extension, the SUA 2.0) is not a
> simultaneous release participation requirement, it's a general requirement.
>
> I haven't been as noisy as I should have been on this forum. Instead, I've
> been working with individual projects as they engage in the release
> process. I'd hoped that we'd have picked up everybody by now, but that
> clearly hasn't happened: either I've missed doing this for some projects,
> neglected to follow up, or those projects simply haven't engaged in a
> release review in a while. There has been plenty of noise about this, but
> certainly not enough on this channel. I'll change that.
>
> I'll backpedal a bit then... if it is possible for this release to update
> from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 (without adding risk to your release), then please
> do so. If not, add it as a plan item for your next release. If your project
> is not planning any releases and is still using EPL-1.0, please plan a
> service release for 2020-06 with the license upgrade.
>
> While have your attention, I'll reinforce...
>
> If you are adding new bits to 2020-03, you need to create a release record
> for that new release. If you have not engaged in a release review within a
> year of the release date, you need to schedule a release review. If you
> have engaged in a successful release review within one year of your release
> date, then you do not have to engage in a release review or submit your IP
> Log for review. If you are not sure whether or not your intellectual
> property is being properly tracked, go ahead and submit your IP Log and
> I'll have a look.
>
> Wayne
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:12 AM Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation requirement?  It
>> seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have.  At this point I would just be
>> happy if there were no corrupted variants of SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553881
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553883
>>
>> The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365 features using
>> SUA 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before the 2020-03 release, without
>> introducing new errors, seem beyond remote to me.
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Note that not only were the two license problems above not fixed for M2,
>> the signing problems were also not fixed:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559739
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559740
>>
>> On the plus side, although the Eclipse Eierlegende Wollmilchsau remains a
>> horrible beast:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=483982
>>
>> At least it launches successfully again:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559317
>>
>> Of course this is only the case after waiting some minutes for the
>> workspace dialog prompt, hoping my computer doesn't catch on fire in the
>> process, and then waiting another minute for the IDE actually rear its ugly
>> head.
>>
>> At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=281750&action=edit
>>
>> Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will always create a
>> new one:
>>
>>   org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property tester contributes
>> a property org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to type class
>> org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ed
>> On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:
>>
>> Hey folks!
>>
>> Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release. I'll be assembling
>> the  project participation information shortly.
>>
>> If you are planning to contribute new bits to the 2020-03 simultaneous
>> release, and have not already done so, please create a release record as
>> soon as possible. It'll be much easier for everybody (especially me) if you
>> can get this done before I start assembling the participation list (if the
>> information is there, then it will be far more likely that I get it right
>> the first time and we can avoid the back-and-forth of fixing things after
>> the fact). There is help in the handbook
>> <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release>.
>>
>> Please make sure that your content has the latest SUA and that, if your
>> project is currently using the EPL-1.0, you update to the EPL-2.0. If you
>> need help with this, please let me know (there's a lot of useful
>> information for this on Bug 530393
>> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530393>).
>>
>> You need only engage in a release review if you have not done so with one
>> year of your release date. If you do need to engage in a release review,
>> please engage in the workflow at your earliest convenience. The IP Log
>> submission deadline is February 28/2020 (M3).
>>
>> Note that, whether or not you engage in a release review, you are
>> required to implement the IP Policy at all times. Further, it is a
>> simultaneous release requirement that all third party content be consumed
>> through Eclipse Orbit.
>>
>> The IP Policy was updated in the fall. In practical terms for
>> simultaneous release participants, this means that you no longer need to
>> create piggyback CQs. There's more background in a Reviewing Third Party
>> Content blog post
>> <https://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/reviewing-third-party-content/>.
>> More information regarding how our processes are being updated will be
>> coming shortly.
>>
>> You have likely heard that the Eclipse Planning Council was removed from
>> the Bylaws of the Eclipse Foundation. This does not mean that the Planning
>> Council no longer exists, only that it is no longer governed directly by
>> the bylaws. The Planning Council is still very much the primary authority
>> with regard to oversight of the simultaneous release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Wayne
>> --
>>
>> Wayne Beaton
>>
>> Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing listcross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
>> this list, 
>> visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>> from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
>
> --
>
> Wayne Beaton
>
> Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing listcross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
> this list, 
> visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev



-- 

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Reply via email to