I've started a separate thread on the possibility of adding requirements after the release plan has been has been approved

I'm starting a new thread to discuss this. Currently, the plan [0] is to have new project infrastructure up 1 week after M1 modulo Thanksgiving. Phil has told me that Andrew agreed that should be

(Starting this discussion as it's own thread.) My worry is that, like Karaf [0], we will end up with something that every project will really need to do and which can be made KDC, but that wasn't

Actually, karaf in Helium is the *perfect* example of why KDC is crucial. We *rushed* the Helium Simultaneous Release Plan out the door. We did *not* KDC karaf for Helium. We *did* make a series of

Overall very good at defining "what", but less so at defining "how". For instance: Planning Projects must declare their intent to participate in the Simultaneous Release by M1. How? Send email to

The issue is that I think most people will merely use the API and see if it works without ever looking at the Javadoc or seeing that there's an @Beta. Ideally, we'd generate a warning for using @Beta

Inline, also with snips where we agree. Again, while I'm 100% in favor of these ideals, I just want to make sure that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of our ability to drive a successful

I would like to see the TSC vote on the final Lithium release plan at next week's TSC meeting (on Thursday, 11/6). The current draft is on the wiki

Most of these annotations (like @Beta) are @Documented, so they should show up in Javadocs and similar contexts. Bye, Robert

The TSC met for two hours on Thursday, October 30th 2014 and covered a range of topics. The full minutes can be found in the usual place [0]. The major topics covered were: * We intend to release the

I feel kind of strongly that we have at least a Milestone for projects to work out what they need for M1 (particularly planning). The simplest way to do that is M0, but we could figure something else

I'm having audio issue, so please allow Flavio to be my proxy

I’ll join (and rex leave) about half way through. Rex is HP TSC member for purpose of starting meeting until I can join. Thx. -drl Dave Lenrow Distinguished Architect Advanced Technology

* Colin Dixon (colin@...) wrote: yes

Comments inline… with some snipping where I think we are violently agreeing ;) I would suggest that if we can’t KDC it prior to approval of the SR, we shouldn’t require it. Now that you say it

So, it seems like M0 is almost meaningless. There's no requirements for projects and so it's date can be set arbitrarily. I was thinking that M0 would be some fixed time after the previous release

Luis, We haven’t crossed M0 yet, because the SR plan has not been approved by the TSC. I am fundamentally opposed to approving a plan with Milestone dates in the past at time of approval. Ed

I believe we will need to find the right balance between very strict KDC vs very loose requirements. The first one has proved to fail in the past as being a dynamic project as we are we need

Speaking as a sysadmin I honestly like RPMs as they make installing and managing software much easier on systems. Speaking as someone that helped get the Hydrogen RPMs packaged, doing this right is

Cool about docker! Should we be trying to push on RPMs or find somebody that can help or have we decided that it's not that important? --Colin