harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:56:41 GMT
On 4/24/08, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> > I agree with Tim on this issue.  I think making a release, with the
> > testing, evaluation and voting involved, should not be something that
> > downstream projects dictate.  Doing this release would seem to set a
> > precedent that I would not be happy with.
> >
> > I would be inclined to vote -1 for any formal release that isn't simply
> > the next milestone release.  Of course, this is not necessarily my final
> > decision.
> >
> > The downstream project should use our current release or if they have
> > a desperate need for something more recent then they should be more
> > flexible.
> >
> Just to be clear about my views -- I have no objection if we choose to
> effectively freeze new feature work in the verifier so that Eclipse can take
> a copy of the source code at a well-defined revision number with some
> assurance from us that it is not in a great state of flux.
> However, if we are going to produce a formal milestone, that has undergone
> the testing, checking, signing, and distribution via ASF mirrors then we owe
> it to all our users for that to be the best quality we can produce.  And
> that means the feature freeze, code freeze, test and voting cycle that we
> have established for the project.

I don't know what particularly stands behind the 'officially released'
requirement. We started our discussion with the requirement of 'binary
release' and it transformed further to the 'source release'.

So say if we'll complete testing verifier and declare 'officially'
that we tested it in particular svn revision that we freeze (i.e.
verifier code) till M6 (and optionally provide a source bundle). Then
IIUC it is OK for you but I don't know if it is acceptable for Eclipse

And if the 'officially released' requirement implies our current
formal process (i.e. testing, checking, voting, signing, distribution
and so on) then I don't see any way how to resolve it in the current


> Regards,
> Tim

View raw message