Hi Wayne, ATL contributes version 4.2.0 instead of 4.1.0: there were build dependency issues with ATL in SimRel, which forced us to roll a new release. Sorry about the late notice.
Kind regards, Dennis Wagelaar On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:16 AM Ed Merks <[email protected]> wrote: > Wayne, > > Sorry I've been very bad for not creating release records in a timely > manner. :-( > > For 2019-09 I forgot to create this for Oomph: > > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.oomph/releases/1.14.0 > > For 2019-12 I've just now created these: > > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.emf.emf/releases/2.20.0 > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.mdt.xsd/releases/2.20.0 > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.oomph/releases/1.15.0 > > Some of the dates for these new records resulted in problems that prevent > scheduling their reviews. I.e., I plan to do a release build for EMF/XSD > 2.0 today or tomorrow (for consumption by the platform which does its next > RC build on Wednesday). > > Regards, > Ed > > On 02.12.2019 15:50, Wayne Beaton wrote: > > I've updated the records for both Eclipse CDO and Eclipse EMF Diff/Merge. > Thanks for bringing this to my attention. > > Note that changes we made to the EDP in late 2018 change the release > review requirements. You only need to engage in a release review for > releases that occur more than one year after your last successful release > review. For most project teams (i.e., active projects making regular > releases), this means that you only need to engage in a release review once > every year. > > You still need to create a release record, but you do not have to engage > with the EMO or your PMC, and you don't need to submit your IP Log. Project > leads do need to take care to ensure that the intellectual property > included in all releases has been fully vetted by the IP due diligence > process (that is, all CQs for content included in a release must be > resolved before making the release official). If you're not sure, then you > can check with the EMO or EMO IP Team. > > Wayne > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:54 AM CONSTANT Olivier < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Wayne, >> >> >> >> EMF Diff/Merge will contribute 0.11.2 to 2019-12 (same as 2019-09), not >> 0.12.0. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Olivier >> >> >> >> >> >> *De :* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *De la part de* Wayne >> Beaton >> *Envoyé :* vendredi 29 novembre 2019 21:37 >> *À :* Cross project issues >> *Objet :* [cross-project-issues-dev] 2019-12 Participation Page >> >> >> >> Greetings folks! >> >> >> >> I've created the 2019-12 Participation page >> <https://projects.eclipse.org/releases/2019-12> using the information >> that I could find. Let me know if anything is incorrect. >> >> >> >> By way of reminder, if you are including new bits in this edition of the >> simultaneous release, you'll need a release record that indicates the >> version that you are contribution. There's more help in the wiki >> <https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#State_intent_early> >> . >> >> >> >> If you have not engaged in a release review >> <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release-review> in the last >> year, then you will need to engage in that process ASAP. >> >> >> >> Note that, per the IP Policy updates approved by the Eclipse Board of >> Directors in October 2019, piggyback CQs are no longer required. I owe you >> all a much longer discussion about these changes (which are more extensive >> than just not needing piggybacks) which I promise to provide before the end >> of the year. I've started here >> <https://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/reviewing-third-party-content/> >> . >> >> >> >> Note also that, even if you are contributing new bits, but do not >> require a release review because you've done one in the last year already, >> the intellectual property contained (and referenced by) your release must >> be fully vetted by the IP due diligence process. >> >> >> >> The simultaneous release participation rules require that projects >> consume third party content via Eclipse Orbit, so this shouldn't be a >> problem for most of you. For those projects that consume third party >> content from outside of Orbit (e.g., those projects that consume NPM >> content), or are otherwise unsure of due diligence status of any of their >> content, you can submit an IP Log and I'll take a look. >> >> >> >> Wayne >> >> -- >> >> *Wayne Beaton* >> >> *Director of Open Source Projects | **Eclipse Foundation, Inc.* >> _______________________________________________ >> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe > from this list, visit > https://www.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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
