Planning Council/March 16 2014
EclipseCon Face2Face Sunday March 16th, 2-4pm, Bayside
Members and Attendees
Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members or PMCs we have not heard from for a while, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.
Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record.
Y = Yes, attended
N = No, did not
R = regrets sent ahead of time
D = delegated
X = not expected
Reviewed important dates
- Reminder: deadlines and dates for Luna CQs, Reviews, etc.
Kepler / Luna issue
- Reviewed important p2 bug bug 427148
- This is a serious problem for Luna, Tycho creates a new EXE each time, and EPP Uses tycho.
- Why is this not a problem for the platform build? (could be the way EPP Does branding)
- We don't really have a solution here. It's not clear this has ever worked, but maybe we have just been lucky. This doesn't appear to be a problem for SR2, having said that, some people (Namely David) have seen it. Not much we can do now for Kepler anyways.
- Should we / can we push all our stuff to maven
- How do we push dependencies
- Can we use stuff from Maven, why not? (Legally)
- We should be doing this. If someone really wants to push on this, get in touch with Wayne and start putting together a proposal
- Nothing really to discuss
Progress on Action Items
- Improved "aggregator examples/doc". (dw -- no progress).
- Orbit plan
- Wayne says that Maven is the answer going forward, no real update at this time.
- Should we have several streams
- Should we remove the notion of 'service releases'?
- We call Sept and Feb releases SR releases. But in reality they are Eclipse Platform SR releases, with some other components that may be or may not be more stable than the previous version.
- Marcel (Actually, this was mentioned in the AC meeting, but I'll add it here) wanted to put Code Recommenders 2.0 in SR2 but didn't because he wasn't really allowed. However, others have done this type of thing. Are we fooling ourselves? Are we fooling our users? Can we have 3 releases points a year and the projects can contribute whatever they want (as long as the aggregator doesn't object)? Again, if anyone really wants to do this, we need to start with a concrete proposal.
- Should we stop the release and go with 'Mars forever'!
- If we did this, what would we call it?
- Does it still make sense to have a single name for the Year (Mars, Mars 1 and Mars 2)
- John mentioned that Ubuntu has a good version number XX.MM, so for us that would be Eclipse 14.6 (June 2014), Eclipse 14.9 (Sept 2014), Eclipse 15.2
- Remember these are the 'Marketing Versions' not the semantic versions, or bundle versions. These say nothing about compatibility
- What about two streams, one for unstable and one for stable
- Cedric mentioned the challenges with trying to get new stuff in users hands.
- Orion wants to move to release every two weeks
- Will this be a problem? Do we need to rethink the concept of a 'release'.
- Other (non release train projects, Vert.x for example) want to do this too.
- 2013 EclipseCon face-to-face follow-through action items. For original meeting notes, see Planning_Council/March_24_2013 and for discussion leading to action items, see Planning_Council/April_10_2013. For last status update, see Planning_Council/May_8_2013.