Hi, > The only good way to report a bad state is to fail the build so it doesn't > pass review.
That is exactly what I had in mind. Given Alexander’s arguments, I stand corrected: "release early, release often". For GEF, automation of the process will be advanced further. I want to contribute a newer version only when it adds value. The only issue I have with the current release process is deciding beforehand what version will be contributed. Maybe I am misunderstanding something about the process, though. Best regards, Matthias -- Matthias Wienand B.Sc. Softwaretechnik Software Engineer Telefon: +49 231 9860 202 Telefax: +49 231 9860 211 Mobil: +49 176 248 950 82 matthias.wien...@itemis.de http://www.xing.com/profile/Matthias_Wienand2 http://www.itemis.de itemis AG Niederlassung Lünen Am Brambusch 15-24 44536 Lünen Rechtlicher Hinweis: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621 Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Abdelghani El-Kacimi Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino > Am 29.01.2020 um 10:58 schrieb Mickael Istria <mist...@redhat.com>: > > > > 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 > <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
