Mark, Indeed, moving release date is another nice option we may consider. What would be the earliest date for M6, indeed? Let's make a realistic estimate, communicate it to Eclipse legals, and, indeed*, see how they would react.
I'm also interested to hear arguments against a pseudo-release from you. Thanks! *) it's the third time he's used it On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Stepan > > Mishura" writes: > > > > On 4/24/08, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Ellison writes: > > > > > > > > I'm really not convinced this is a good idea for Harmony, and my > > > > concerns are in two parts: > > > > > > > > 1) Our schedule should not be dictated by an external project, > > > > especially when it is their process that seems to be setting the > > > > artificial time limit. Why not show some flexibility to meet our > > > > dates? > > > > > > > > 2) Our principle delivery mechanism is source code. While we make > > > > binaries available as a convenience we should not encourage dependents > > > > to put dependencies on our build tools. They should take source and > > > > compile it themselves for their own environment. > > > > > > I agree with Tim on this issue. I think making a release, with the > > > testing, evaluation and voting involved, should not be something that > > > downstream projects dictate. Doing this release would seem to set a > > > precedent that I would not be happy with. > > > > > > I would be inclined to vote -1 for any formal release that isn't simply > > > the next milestone release. Of course, this is not necessarily my final > > > decision. > > > > > > The downstream project should use our current release or if they have > > > a desperate need for something more recent then they should be more > > > flexible. > > > > > > > It makes me sad :-( > > Sorry. > > > > We ask another project to be more flexible but we are not ready to be > > flexible too - we scheduled M6 to mid of May and we couldn't move it > > to the end of April. > > That is unfair. That is not what I've said. I did not say we couldn't > move the M6 release date. I've not stated an opinion on that one way > or the other. However, my statement about "voting -1 for any formal > release that isn't simply the next milestone" was intended to allow for > this possibility. > > > > > We are discussing the request almost for 2 weeks (this time is enough > > to make full milestone testing cycle) and I've not heard any strong > > argument for having it in mid of May expect that we scheduled it to > > this date. ;-( > > Moving our milestone doesn't necessarily imply more work for everyone > while doing an extra release certainly does. Hence I am more flexible > about the former. The latter seems like another project forcing us to > do more work to get around their inflexible policy which is definitely > wrong to me. > > I hope that is clearer and makes you a little less sad. > > Regards, > -Mark. > > > -- With best regards, Alexei
