Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Today is M2

2020-02-10 Thread Wayne Beaton 
A service release never requires a review (nor does it require an IP Log
review). So, yes, just create a release record and you're good-to-go.

IMHO a release that only updates from the EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 is a service
release. I, naturally, defer to a project's PMC if they have a different
opinion.

Wayne

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:38 AM Ed Merks  wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the new bits being contributed are just a
> service release then no review is required, only the release record,
> correct?
>
> On 09.02.2020 18:15, Wayne Beaton wrote:
>
> Updating to the EPL-2.0 (and, by extension, the SUA 2.0) is not a
> simultaneous release participation requirement, it's a general requirement.
>
> I haven't been as noisy as I should have been on this forum. Instead, I've
> been working with individual projects as they engage in the release
> process. I'd hoped that we'd have picked up everybody by now, but that
> clearly hasn't happened: either I've missed doing this for some projects,
> neglected to follow up, or those projects simply haven't engaged in a
> release review in a while. There has been plenty of noise about this, but
> certainly not enough on this channel. I'll change that.
>
> I'll backpedal a bit then... if it is possible for this release to update
> from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 (without adding risk to your release), then please
> do so. If not, add it as a plan item for your next release. If your project
> is not planning any releases and is still using EPL-1.0, please plan a
> service release for 2020-06 with the license upgrade.
>
> While have your attention, I'll reinforce...
>
> If you are adding new bits to 2020-03, you need to create a release record
> for that new release. If you have not engaged in a release review within a
> year of the release date, you need to schedule a release review. If you
> have engaged in a successful release review within one year of your release
> date, then you do not have to engage in a release review or submit your IP
> Log for review. If you are not sure whether or not your intellectual
> property is being properly tracked, go ahead and submit your IP Log and
> I'll have a look.
>
> Wayne
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:12 AM Ed Merks  wrote:
>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation requirement?  It
>> seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have.  At this point I would just be
>> happy if there were no corrupted variants of SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553881
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553883
>>
>> The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365 features using
>> SUA 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before the 2020-03 release, without
>> introducing new errors, seem beyond remote to me.
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Note that not only were the two license problems above not fixed for M2,
>> the signing problems were also not fixed:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559739
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559740
>>
>> On the plus side, although the Eclipse Eierlegende Wollmilchsau remains a
>> horrible beast:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=483982
>>
>> At least it launches successfully again:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559317
>>
>> Of course this is only the case after waiting some minutes for the
>> workspace dialog prompt, hoping my computer doesn't catch on fire in the
>> process, and then waiting another minute for the IDE actually rear its ugly
>> head.
>>
>> At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:
>>
>>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=281750=edit
>>
>> Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will always create a
>> new one:
>>
>>   org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property tester contributes
>> a property org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to type class
>> org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ed
>> On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:
>>
>> Hey folks!
>>
>> Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release. I'll be assembling
>> the  project participation information shortly.
>>
>> If you are planning to contribute new bits to the 2020-03 simultaneous
>> release, and have not already done so, please create a release record as
>> soon as possible. It'll be much easier for everybody (especially me) if you
>> can get this done before I start assembling the participation list (if the
>> information is there, then it will be far more likely that I get it right
>> the first time and we can avoid the back-and-forth of fixing things after
>> the fact). There is help in the handbook
>> .
>>
>> Please make sure that your content has the latest SUA and that, if your
>> project is currently using the EPL-1.0, you update to the EPL-2.0. If you
>> need help with this, please let me know (there's a lot of useful
>> information for

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Today is M2

2020-02-09 Thread Ed Merks 

Wayne,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the new bits being contributed are just 
a service release then no review is required, only the release record, 
correct?


On 09.02.2020 18:15, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Updating to the EPL-2.0 (and, by extension, the SUA 2.0) is not a 
simultaneous release participation requirement, it's a general 
requirement.


I haven't been as noisy as I should have been on this forum. Instead, 
I've been working with individual projects as they engage in the 
release process. I'd hoped that we'd have picked up everybody by now, 
but that clearly hasn't happened: either I've missed doing this for 
some projects, neglected to follow up, or those projects simply 
haven't engaged in a release review in a while. There has been plenty 
of noise about this, but certainly not enough on this channel. I'll 
change that.


I'll backpedal a bit then... if it is possible for this release to 
update from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 (without adding risk to your release), 
then please do so. If not, add it as a plan item for your next 
release. If your project is not planning any releases and is still 
using EPL-1.0, please plan a service release for 2020-06 with the 
license upgrade.


While have your attention, I'll reinforce...

If you are adding new bits to 2020-03, you need to create a release 
record for that new release. If you have not engaged in a release 
review within a year of the release date, you need to schedule a 
release review. If you have engaged in a successful release review 
within one year of your release date, then you do not have to engage 
in a release review or submit your IP Log for review. If you are not 
sure whether or not your intellectual property is being properly 
tracked, go ahead and submit your IP Log and I'll have a look.


Wayne

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:12 AM Ed Merks > wrote:


Wayne,

Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation
requirement?  It seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have. At this
point I would just be happy if there were no corrupted variants of
SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553881
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553883

The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365 features
using SUA 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before the 2020-03
release, without introducing new errors, seem beyond remote to me.

All,

Note that not only were the two license problems above not fixed
for M2, the signing problems were also not fixed:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559739
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559740

On the plus side, although the Eclipse Eierlegende Wollmilchsau
remains a horrible beast:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=483982

At least it launches successfully again:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559317

Of course this is only the case after waiting some minutes for the
workspace dialog prompt, hoping my computer doesn't catch on fire
in the process, and then waiting another minute for the IDE
actually rear its ugly head.

At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=281750=edit

Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will always
create a new one:

  org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property tester
contributes a property
org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to type class
org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry

Regards,
Ed

On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:

Hey folks!

Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release. I'll be
assembling the  project participation information shortly.

If you are planning to contribute new bits to the 2020-03
simultaneous release, and have not already done so, please create
a release record as soon as possible. It'll be much easier for
everybody (especially me) if you can get this done before I start
assembling the participation list (if the information is there,
then it will be far more likely that I get it right the first
time and we can avoid the back-and-forth of fixing things after
the fact). There is help in the handbook
.

Please make sure that your content has the latest SUA and that,
if your project is currently using the EPL-1.0, you update to the
EPL-2.0. If you need help with this, please let me know (there's
a lot of useful information for this on Bug 530393
).

You need only engage in a release review if you have not done so
with one year of your release date. If you do need to engage in a
release review, please engage in the workflow at your earliest
convenience. The IP Log submission deadline is February 28/2020 (M3).

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Today is M2

2020-02-09 Thread Wayne Beaton 
Updating to the EPL-2.0 (and, by extension, the SUA 2.0) is not a
simultaneous release participation requirement, it's a general requirement.

I haven't been as noisy as I should have been on this forum. Instead, I've
been working with individual projects as they engage in the release
process. I'd hoped that we'd have picked up everybody by now, but that
clearly hasn't happened: either I've missed doing this for some projects,
neglected to follow up, or those projects simply haven't engaged in a
release review in a while. There has been plenty of noise about this, but
certainly not enough on this channel. I'll change that.

I'll backpedal a bit then... if it is possible for this release to update
from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 (without adding risk to your release), then please
do so. If not, add it as a plan item for your next release. If your project
is not planning any releases and is still using EPL-1.0, please plan a
service release for 2020-06 with the license upgrade.

While have your attention, I'll reinforce...

If you are adding new bits to 2020-03, you need to create a release record
for that new release. If you have not engaged in a release review within a
year of the release date, you need to schedule a release review. If you
have engaged in a successful release review within one year of your release
date, then you do not have to engage in a release review or submit your IP
Log for review. If you are not sure whether or not your intellectual
property is being properly tracked, go ahead and submit your IP Log and
I'll have a look.

Wayne

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:12 AM Ed Merks  wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation requirement?  It
> seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have.  At this point I would just be
> happy if there were no corrupted variants of SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553881
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553883
>
> The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365 features using SUA
> 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before the 2020-03 release, without
> introducing new errors, seem beyond remote to me.
>
> All,
>
> Note that not only were the two license problems above not fixed for M2,
> the signing problems were also not fixed:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559739
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559740
>
> On the plus side, although the Eclipse Eierlegende Wollmilchsau remains a
> horrible beast:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=483982
>
> At least it launches successfully again:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559317
>
> Of course this is only the case after waiting some minutes for the
> workspace dialog prompt, hoping my computer doesn't catch on fire in the
> process, and then waiting another minute for the IDE actually rear its ugly
> head.
>
> At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=281750=edit
>
> Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will always create a
> new one:
>
>   org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property tester contributes a
> property org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to type class
> org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry
>
> Regards,
> Ed
> On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:
>
> Hey folks!
>
> Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release. I'll be assembling the
> project participation information shortly.
>
> If you are planning to contribute new bits to the 2020-03 simultaneous
> release, and have not already done so, please create a release record as
> soon as possible. It'll be much easier for everybody (especially me) if you
> can get this done before I start assembling the participation list (if the
> information is there, then it will be far more likely that I get it right
> the first time and we can avoid the back-and-forth of fixing things after
> the fact). There is help in the handbook
> .
>
> Please make sure that your content has the latest SUA and that, if your
> project is currently using the EPL-1.0, you update to the EPL-2.0. If you
> need help with this, please let me know (there's a lot of useful
> information for this on Bug 530393
> ).
>
> You need only engage in a release review if you have not done so with one
> year of your release date. If you do need to engage in a release review,
> please engage in the workflow at your earliest convenience. The IP Log
> submission deadline is February 28/2020 (M3).
>
> Note that, whether or not you engage in a release review, you are required
> to implement the IP Policy at all times. Further, it is a simultaneous
> release requirement that all third party content be consumed through
> Eclipse Orbit.
>
> The IP Policy was updated in the fall. In practical terms for simultaneous
> release participants, this

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Today is M2

2020-02-08 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov 
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:12 AM Ed Merks  wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation requirement?  It
> seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have.  At this point I would just be
> happy if there were no corrupted variants of SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553881
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553883
>
> The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365 features using SUA
> 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before the 2020-03 release, without
> introducing new errors, seem beyond remote to me.
>
> All,
>
> Note that not only were the two license problems above not fixed for M2,
> the signing problems were also not fixed:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559739
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559740
>
We should get the swtchart one fixed for M3.
https://github.com/eclipse/swtchart/commit/af344337cde6e591cfca9984ec62bc07ab45167b


> On the plus side, although the Eclipse Eierlegende Wollmilchsau remains a
> horrible beast:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=483982
>
> At least it launches successfully again:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559317
>
> Of course this is only the case after waiting some minutes for the
> workspace dialog prompt, hoping my computer doesn't catch on fire in the
> process, and then waiting another minute for the IDE actually rear its ugly
> head.
>
> At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:
>
>   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=281750=edit
>
> Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will always create a
> new one:
>
>   org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property tester contributes a
> property org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to type class
> org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry
>
> Regards,
> Ed
> On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:
>
> Hey folks!
>
> Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release. I'll be assembling the
> project participation information shortly.
>
> If you are planning to contribute new bits to the 2020-03 simultaneous
> release, and have not already done so, please create a release record as
> soon as possible. It'll be much easier for everybody (especially me) if you
> can get this done before I start assembling the participation list (if the
> information is there, then it will be far more likely that I get it right
> the first time and we can avoid the back-and-forth of fixing things after
> the fact). There is help in the handbook
> .
>
> Please make sure that your content has the latest SUA and that, if your
> project is currently using the EPL-1.0, you update to the EPL-2.0. If you
> need help with this, please let me know (there's a lot of useful
> information for this on Bug 530393
> ).
>
> You need only engage in a release review if you have not done so with one
> year of your release date. If you do need to engage in a release review,
> please engage in the workflow at your earliest convenience. The IP Log
> submission deadline is February 28/2020 (M3).
>
> Note that, whether or not you engage in a release review, you are required
> to implement the IP Policy at all times. Further, it is a simultaneous
> release requirement that all third party content be consumed through
> Eclipse Orbit.
>
> The IP Policy was updated in the fall. In practical terms for simultaneous
> release participants, this means that you no longer need to create
> piggyback CQs. There's more background in a Reviewing Third Party Content
> blog post
> .
> More information regarding how our processes are being updated will be
> coming shortly.
>
> You have likely heard that the Eclipse Planning Council was removed from
> the Bylaws of the Eclipse Foundation. This does not mean that the Planning
> Council no longer exists, only that it is no longer governed directly by
> the bylaws. The Planning Council is still very much the primary authority
> with regard to oversight of the simultaneous release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne
> --
>
> Wayne Beaton
>
> Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
>
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing listcross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org
> 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
> 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



-- 
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Today is M2

2020-02-08 Thread Ed Merks 

Wayne,

Are you suggesting that SUA 2.0 is a new participation requirement?  It 
seems to me merely a very-nice-to-have.  At this point I would just be 
happy if there were no corrupted variants of SUA 1.0 and SUA 1.1:


  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553881
  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=553883

The odds that the 20 features using SUA 1.0 and the 365 features using 
SUA 1.1 will all migrate to SUA 2.0 before the 2020-03 release, without 
introducing new errors, seem beyond remote to me.


All,

Note that not only were the two license problems above not fixed for M2, 
the signing problems were also not fixed:


  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559739
  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559740

On the plus side, although the Eclipse Eierlegende Wollmilchsau remains 
a horrible beast:


  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=483982

At least it launches successfully again:

  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559317

Of course this is only the case after waiting some minutes for the 
workspace dialog prompt, hoping my computer doesn't catch on fire in the 
process, and then waiting another minute for the IDE actually rear its 
ugly head.


At this point, the Error Log is very well populated:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=281750=edit

Most interesting is that clicking an error log entry will always create 
a new one:


  org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: No property tester 
contributes a property org.eclipse.tcf.te.launch.ui.model.canDelete to 
type class org.eclipse.ui.internal.views.log.LogEntry


Regards,
Ed

On 07.02.2020 23:07, Wayne Beaton wrote:

Hey folks!

Today is the M2 date for the simultaneous release. I'll be assembling 
the  project participation information shortly.


If you are planning to contribute new bits to the 2020-03 simultaneous 
release, and have not already done so, please create a release record 
as soon as possible. It'll be much easier for everybody (especially 
me) if you can get this done before I start assembling the 
participation list (if the information is there, then it will be far 
more likely that I get it right the first time and we can avoid the 
back-and-forth of fixing things after the fact). There is help in the 
handbook .


Please make sure that your content has the latest SUA and that, if 
your project is currently using the EPL-1.0, you update to the 
EPL-2.0. If you need help with this, please let me know (there's a lot 
of useful information for this on Bug 530393 
).


You need only engage in a release review if you have not done so with 
one year of your release date. If you do need to engage in a release 
review, please engage in the workflow at your earliest convenience. 
The IP Log submission deadline is February 28/2020 (M3).


Note that, whether or not you engage in a release review, you are 
required to implement the IP Policy at all times. Further, it is a 
simultaneous release requirement that all third party content be 
consumed through Eclipse Orbit.


The IP Policy was updated in the fall. In practical terms for 
simultaneous release participants, this means that you no longer need 
to create piggyback CQs. There's more background in a Reviewing Third 
Party Content blog post 
. 
More information regarding how our processes are being updated will be 
coming shortly.


You have likely heard that the Eclipse Planning Council was removed 
from the Bylaws of the Eclipse Foundation. This does not mean that the 
Planning Council no longer exists, only that it is no longer governed 
directly by the bylaws. The Planning Council is still very much the 
primary authority with regard to oversight of the simultaneous release.


Thanks,

Wayne
--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.


___
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