Difference between revisions of "WTP 3.5 Ramp down Plan for Kepler"
(→Java EE Tools)
|(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)|
|Line 90:||Line 90:|
===Java EE Tools===
===Java EE Tools===
Latest revision as of 11:19, 2 May 2013
- 1 WTP Ramp down for Kepler
- 2 Post-M6 Exceptions by sub-project
WTP Ramp down for Kepler
Key WTP Build Dates
- M6 03/14 (for delivery to Kepler+2 on 03/19)
- M7 05/02 (for delivery to Kepler+2 on 05/07)(after this build, begin PMC +1)
- RC1 05/16 (for delivery to Kepler+2 on 05/21)(after this build, still PMC +1)
- RC2 05/23 (for delivery to Kepler+2 on 05/28)(after this build, begin PMC +2)
- RC3 05/30 (for delivery to Kepler+2 on 06/04)(after this build, begin PMC +3)
- RC4 06/06 (for delivery to Kepler+2 on 06/11) [Final build]
- Kepler GA 06/26
Just to remind everyone, there is a "ramp down" for every milestone. Typically the last week of a Milestone is for testing, and fixing only regressions and P1 or blocking defects. For milestones, during that final week, the Project lead (or delegate) is enough to review and approve a bug for inclusion in that milestone. Such "final week" bugs, should be formally marked for review and approved before releasing or requesting a respin.
M6: Feature Complete, API Freeze, UI Freeze, Eclipsecon
We plan to ensure good enough quality that M6 can be used by EclipseCon presenters for presentations, demos, and tutorials.
For M6, we plan to be functionally and API complete and the remaining Milestone and Release Candidates are for (only) fixing bugs, or fixing release required items (such as version numbers, licensing, etc.).
From M6 to M7, we expect each component lead (or delegate) to review and verify their teams' bugs (i.e. no PMC review ... though we will be watching :) ).
We expect committers to concentrate on performance and other "internal" improvements, after M6, leading up to M7. In addition, it's a good time to improve documentation (for end-users and adopters).
If there are exceptions to these conditions, then they will require PMC review. In that event, the Project Lead must open a bugzilla, detailing the feature to be added after M6 and mark for PMC review. And that must be done before M6 is declared. Exceptions (with bug numbers) will also be listed at the end of this document, to help facilitate communication.
- Place [NLS] or [API] or [Feature] in the heading of the bug depending on which type it is
- Notify PMC members PMC Defect Review, 1 vote is needed
- Once approved, code can be released, though ideally other, if not all, PMC members will review, and might still have questions, or (in rare cases) object.
- Update this wiki page to append the bug at the bottom of the page, so adopters have a central place to find exceptions that they may have to react to; re-translate, generate new screen captures, modify their own documentation, or adjust testing procedures, etc.
M7: PMC Review starts after M7
After the M7, the process of building and testing Release Candidates begins (sometimes called "the end game"). At first, after M7 but before RC1, in addition to the normal component team review, at least 1 PMC member must also review and vote +1 after reviewing the bug for appropriateness (weighing benefits and risks).
We expect Release Candidates to truly be candidates for release (i.e. well performing, high quality, product ready code). After the first RC is produced, other RCs will be produced, as needed, every week.
After M7 is produced, the time for general functional improvements is long past. The following describes the types of bugs that would be appropriate:
- A regression
- A P1 or P2 bug, one that is 'blocking' or 'critical', and some cases of 'major' severity.
- Documentation and PII files are exceptions to the normal PMC required review, since there is little chance of that breaking anything, though it is still expected to be complete by M6, and remaining work to be only documentation fixes (that is, no refactoring of plugins, build changes, etc, without PMC review and approval).
- In addition to a bug meeting the above priority/severity conditions, there should be a simple, safe, well understood fix that is well isolated from effecting other components, that doesn't affect API or adopters, that has been well reviewed and well tested.
- As each Release Candidate passes, the criteria for weighing the benefit-to-risk ratio criteria gets higher and higher, and as such requires a larger number of PMC members to review.
After RC1, same rules as after M7: besides the normal component team review, at least 1 PMC members must also review and vote +1 after reviewing the bug for appropriateness and risk.
After RC2, besides the normal component team review, at least 2 PMC members must also review and vote +1 after reviewing the bug for appropriateness and risk.
After RC3, besides the normal component team review, at least 3 PMC members must also review and vote +1 after reviewing the bug for appropriateness and risk.
After RC4 is produced, we'll prepare and test the zip's, update site, web pages, etc.
Post-M6 Exceptions by sub-project
Java EE Tools
- 400485 [NLS] Add content types for JavaEE7 namespace
- 406476 Need to make metadata features less dependent on structured document
- 405220 [NLS][xsl] Add default shortcut for launching XSLT
- 399558 Improve "Make Persistent" wizard to do attribute level annotations
- 293835 Add EclipseLink specific messages to validation preferences and improve defaults