Planning Council/Dec 03 2008
|Meeting Title:||Planning Council Conference Call|
|Date & Time:||Wednesday Dec 03, 2008 at 1600 UTC / 0900 SFO / 1200 NYC / 1700 London / 1800 Berlin|
|Dial-in:||For the call-in numbers, please see the Portal page.|
- Richard Gronback
- Anthony Hunter
- David Williams
- Doug Gaff
- Brian Fitzpatrick
- Tom Watson
- Oliver Cole
- Pat Huff
- Bjorn Freeman-Benson
- Ed Merks
- Doug Schaefer
- Philippe Mulet
- Wenfeng Li
- Karsten Schmidt
- Markus Knauer (I'll try to be on the conference call, but I am not sure if I can make it...)
- Chris Aniszczyk (Technology PMC)
- John Graham
- Neil Hauge
- Mika Hoikkala
- Oisin Hurley
- Christian Kurzke
- Mike Milinkovich
- James Saliba
- Georg Schmidt
- Galileo requirements... last chance to confirm or contest before M4
- Unanimous confirmation that what we have is fine
- Bundles as jar requirement: applies to source jars as well? See bug 252800
- Unanimous confirmation that source jars are also required, with the same clause of documented deviations
- Capabilities, the next round of defining this requirement. See bug 252807
- Agreed that minimal approach is all we require in Galileo, and that project wishing to avoid creation of a new feature/bundle can contribute to Galileo directly
- TPTP questions on requirements (see below)
- All issues resolved, with a suggestion to add the offer from TPTP to aid with performance testing be added to the corresponding requirement bug
- Provider names in the About dialog. See bug 198941
- Agreed to promote this should-do to a must-do and include that provider names be more descriptive, per the bug discussion. PMCs to determine the best approach for their projects.
- Continue discussion of SDK Composition
- Nothing further to add at this point. Philippe to look at the page in detail to help address the platform issues identified.
- December 10-11, 2008 - plenary session with Board
There has been much discussion regarding the Must and Should do's for Galileo. At today's TPTP PMC call, we went over each of the Must and Shoulds with regard to TPTP and also with regard to the others on the train.
We weighed the effort for each against the expected benefits for each. Overall, we thought the list was fine. We have the following comments:
- New and Noteworthy - the bugzilla
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=252805) says that these are done on each milestone. The Requirements page (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Galileo_Simultaneous_Release#Requirements_For_Participation) says RC (Release Candidate). TPTP agrees with this for the Release Candidate but it seems a bit much to have it as a must do for each and every milestone.
- Capabilities - TPTP will provide a single point of capability 'TPTP'
in a plugin that will enable user to disable/enable TPTP UI contributions (import/export, launch configurations, views, preferences, and perspective). 254151 is already opened by Anne for such requirement. Does this single point comply with the must do?
- Also, we have a question regarding dependencies as TPTP has features
that depend on other projects (e.g., Profile on server has a dependency on WTP). Do we leave the choice to the user or do we act smart and enable all the optional dependencies for the user?
- Performance - Please add that TPTP is appropriate for profiling and
performance work. As you know, we are putting resources into the community profiler and this is exactly the kind of thing that we are trying to encourage. We will do good support.
- Send out updated requirement to all, particularly for new About dialog must-do (Rich)
- Devise an example of using Bugzilla to document N&N using attachments/comments (Rich)
- Document Galileo build repository location and notify general public that M3 bits are available on http://download.eclipse.org/releases/galileo/ (Rich)
Carry over items
- Look into having a "name that train" contest to coincide with EclipseCon each year (artwork as well?) (Bjorn)