Hi all,
-1 for going back to annual releases.
For stable components there is an option to keep the same version
contributed for a number of releases - this should be sufficient to
support "annual release" experience.
For new and incubation components "annual" may mean mostly "next life".
For people that wants to contribute a patch it sounds like "ok, if you
will be patient enough to go through all the environment setup, reviews
and discussion - you have a chance to see you change next year" - for a
majority of newcomers this doesn't look attractive.
For eclipse-based vendors - annual release is the invitation to do a
fork and think about switching to another platform. Why? Because
"another platform" with growing popularity has monthly releases.
Also annual releases will resurrect a number of "service releases" with
all the effort required, at least to support the new Java versions. So,
as Mickael stated below, the effort is comparable.
I agree with Mickael that only enforced automated reject via pipeline
rules can improve the situation with release quality. Passing pipeline
should mean "the change is good enough to spent time on final review
before the merge".
Regards,
AF
29.01.2020 12:58, Mickael Istria пишет:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Matthias Wienand
<matthias.wien...@itemis.de <mailto:matthias.wien...@itemis.de>> wrote:
Hi all,
+1 for going back to annual releases.
Projects are not forced to do quarterly releases. You can have your
project do a yearly release, but it just means that since Platform
releases every 3 months, you need to check your project against 2
milestones and 2 RCs of the Platform every 3 months (12 times a year).
Which doesn't change much compared to previous state where projects
were supposed to be tested against all Platform milestones and RC, ie
11 times a year.\
The work done by Ed M is very appreciated. Ideally, the different
checks (e.g. licenses) could be automated to prevent degradation
of SimRel quality.
Some checks have already been possible to automate for a while:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/CBI/p2repoAnalyzers/Repo_Reports#With_Maven
The licence check may be missing, and could be added.
Or one can probably just build a similar Maven configuration to run
the other analyzers.
But the real thing is that what matters is not building the report,
but enforcing rules without human intervention. This typically happens
only with mechanism that fail the build in case the analyzers see
issue. As long as human reading is required, it cost too much effort
and time to someone, and feedback loop becomes too long. The only good
way to report a bad state is to fail the build so it doesn't pass review.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
