I take this as "things are fine, as they are in staging". Not sure how this effects "release reviews", Wayne, but what is in staging now, is the same thing that was in Kepler SR2 (i.e. already released).
At least, going by feature names/versions and bundle names/versions. The following are the feature names/versions: org.eclipse.dltk.core_5.0.0.201306060709.jar org.eclipse.dltk.core.index_5.0.0.201306060709.jar org.eclipse.dltk.itcl_5.0.0.201306060709.jar org.eclipse.dltk.rse_5.0.0.201306060709.jar org.eclipse.dltk.ruby_5.0.0.201306060709.jar org.eclipse.dltk.tcl_5.0.0.201306060709.jar org.eclipse.dltk.xotcl_5.0.0.201306060709.jar I'll also note that in the 5.1 "contribution attempt" there's an error that invalidates the aggregation build ... something about a feature missing that is named in some category. It seems clear we should go with what we have, for Luna, and if the DLTK project wants to do something else for Luna SR1, they need to actively work with the "Simultaneous Release" projects that make use of them, and participate on a regular, predictable basis, so adequate testing, etc. can be done. I also suspect (though, know nothing of details) that if there have been "bug fixes only" that "5.0.1" would be more appropriate for Luna SR1, and if there are new features or APIs, that Mars would be more appropriate. There may be many other questions about the viability of the DLTK project as a whole (given lack of activity and communication) but, I think for Luna, we know what to do. I will plan on reverting the commit in Luna, just to be clear on our plans for Luna, and opened Bug 437381 to track that. If DLTK project wants to participate in Luna SR1 or Mars, they will be expected to be more active, timely, and communicative. From: Simon Bernard <[email protected]> To: Cross project issues <[email protected]>, Date: 06/13/2014 05:28 AM Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DLTK in Luna RC4 Sent by: [email protected] LDT (Koneki) depends on DLTK. We never test it on DLTK 5.1. (We never found a repository to test it, it seems available since June 11th or 12th) There no problem for us to go with DLTK 5.0. It seems more reasonable. Some threads to show we try to avoid that : - https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dltk-dev/msg02317.html - https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg10499.html - https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dltk-dev/msg02324.html Le 12/06/2014 21:31, Wayne Beaton a écrit : Greetings folks. We noticed that DTLK updated their aggregation file only just this week to point at their 5.1 bits. Too late, I'm afraid to make it into the RC4 build (which currently includes their 2013 "5.0" bits) and EPP packages. Which Luna projects consume DLTK? (PDT and who else?) Have you been testing on DLTK 5.1? Are you good-to-go with DTLK 5.0? What are our options? Wayne -- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation Learn about Eclipse Projects _______________________________________________ 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
