Hi Wayne, Eclipse Trace Compass is going to be 7.1.0. We only update it in the code just before we do the RC1 build...
Edit: oh it's not the code, it's because we forget to create a new release record... it's done now! https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.tracecompass/releases/7.1.0 Patrick On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:43 AM Wayne Beaton < wayne.bea...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote: > Greetings Folks. > > There's some potentially interesting content about reducing the burden of >> the IP Due Diligence Process in this note. Please read to the bottom. > > > I've created the Eclipse IDE 2021-09 Simultaneous Release Participation > <https://projects.eclipse.org/releases/2021-09> page. Please have a look > to ensure that I have the right version information for your project. > > Note that, Eclipse Generation Factories (EGF) has dropped out of this > release (as notified > <https://www.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg18530.html> > by the project lead). I did notice that the aggrcon file for this project, > along with those for Eclipse XWT and Eclipse Papyrus (both of which dropped > out of the previous release) still exist in the aggregator repository. I > have a vague recollection that we are to expect at least one of them back, > so I'll defer to the repository managers to decide what to do with these > files. > > As usual, I've tried to pick the version based on the date of the release. > In many/most cases, the page records that the same version that was > included in the last release is again included in this release. If your > project's contribution is a later release than what's indicated on the > page, you will need to create a release record for that later release > (assuming that I didn't just miss the one that's actually there), and let > me know to use that one instead. > > If your project is contributing a new release that is more than a service > release and the project has not engaged in either a release or progress > review since September 15/2020, then you need to engage in a review. > Contact e...@eclipse.org at your very earliest convenience to get started. > There's more information regarding releases and reviews > <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release> in the handbook. > > As you know, we take intellectual property management very seriously. As > committers, you form the first line of defense in the Eclipse Foundation's IP > Due Diligence Process <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip> and > so we depend on you to bring intellectual property issues to the IP Team's > attention. Even if your project does not require a review at this time, the > intellectual property included in and referred to by it (both project and > third party content) does need to be vetted in the usual manner. > > I am hopeful that you have heard about our initiative to attempt to > automate the review of third-party content. We already have several > projects using this successfully, including a handful that have integrated > it into their builds. I've been running the Eclipse Dash License Tool > <https://github.com/eclipse/dash-licenses> on many of the repositories > from projects participating in the simultaneous release over the past > several months with good results. > > One of the challenges that I'm having with the tool is that it only > *checks* dependencies, it does not *discover* them. I've had a lot of > success using build technology (e.g. Maven) to generate the list of > dependencies, but have encountered some cases where the dependency list > generated by a build is incomplete. It would be helpful if you could try > the Eclipse Dash License Tool on your builds and let me know (i.e., open an > issue <https://github.com/eclipse/dash-licenses>) where you encounter > challenges generating input to the tool. > > Note that there is an experimental feature that automatically creates > review requests for the IP Team via a repository on our new GitLab > instance. It would also be helpful to my team for you to try this out. > > Note also that the Eclipse Dash License Tool is intended to *help* > committers work through the Eclipse IP Due Diligence Process. It is not the > final authority on what does or does not need to be reviewed. As the first > line of defense in the IP Due Diligence Process, we depend on committers to > interpret the output of the tool and generally understand the nature of the > project's dependencies. Currently, for example, it doesn't handle "works > with" dependencies > <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-third-party-workswith> > very well; so if you know that something that the tool complains about is a > "works with" dependency, then you can ignore any warnings it gives. > > Taken from a different angle, the important thing is that intellectual > property is properly accounted for and vetted, not that the tool is happy > with what it finds. > > Thanks, > > Wayne > -- > > Wayne Beaton > > Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org > To unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
