harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sian January" <sianjanu...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:39:52 GMT
I certainly think moving M6 would have been better than doing a whole
special M5.5 release just for Eclipse.  I thought we were flexible on
milestone dates anyway (e.g. last Christmas), so it wouldn't have been that
much extra effort although obviously there's the fear that it would be
setting the wrong precedent.

I'm not expressing an opinion either way really, but just thinking that if
we were going to do some kind of release (as opposed to just stabilising the
verifier and letting them take the source code) then moving M6 would have
been the better option.  I'm guessing by Stepan's e-mail that it's too late
for that now though.


On 24/04/2008, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/24/08, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In message <480DC6F6.4000006@gmail.com>, Tim Ellison writes:
> > >
> > > I'm really not convinced this is a good idea for Harmony, and my
> > > concerns are in two parts:
> > >
> > > 1) Our schedule should not be dictated by an external project,
> > > especially when it is their process that seems to be setting the
> > > artificial time limit.  Why not show some flexibility to meet our
> > > dates?
> > >
> > > 2) Our principle delivery mechanism is source code.  While we make
> > > binaries available as a convenience we should not encourage dependents
> > > to put dependencies on our build tools.  They should take source and
> > > compile it themselves for their own environment.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> It makes me sad :-(
>
> We ask another project to be more flexible but we are not ready to be
> flexible too - we scheduled M6 to mid of May and we couldn't move it
> to the end of April. We are discussing the request almost for 2 weeks
> (this time is enough to make full milestone testing cycle) and I've
> not heard any strong argument for having it in mid of May expect that
> we scheduled it to this date. ;-(
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > Regards,
> >  Mark.
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message