Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Eclipse/PMC"

(Meeting Minutes)
(435 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
= Documents =
 +
 +
Some documents written and/or used by the PMC:
 +
 +
* [[E4/Graduation_4.0]]
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Unix Groups]]
 +
 
= Meeting Schedule =
 
= Meeting Schedule =
  
The [http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/team-leaders.php Eclipse Project PMC] has a weekly phone meeting '''every wednesday at 10.30am EST'''.
+
The [http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/team-leaders.php Eclipse Project PMC] has a weekly phone meeting '''every Wednesday at 10.30am EST'''.
  
 
= Meeting Minutes =
 
= Meeting Minutes =
  
'''Jul 15:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, John A, Jeff
+
'''September 30, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani
* Dani: What to do with the [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-dev/msg08660.html Galileo Retrospective] items? Which ones should become action items? E.g. Bugzilla Slowness?
+
* Dani: will send a note to PMC list asking to approve new Debug leadership (Sarika)
** John: Next PC meeting is Aug 3, should have items for the PC ready by then
+
* Dani: we should finalize our API removal discussion from last week
** Decision: PMC mailing list conversation, will review retrospective action in Jul 29 PMC meeting.
+
** agreed that APIs marked for removal have to be annotated with @noreference
* McQ to send out a note to formalize John as the PC representation
+
** agreed that components should be allowed to remove API but they have to provide good reasons
* McQ wants status messages again for the arch call
+
** agreed that we won't allow to delete APIs simply because they are deprecated
 +
** agreed that the PMC will decide case by case i.e. there will be no general rule
 +
** regarding version numbering we decided to also decide this case by case
 +
** Dani to update the removal document and have it reviewed by the PMC
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Jun 24:''' - McQ, Dani
 
* Dani asked whether the PMC meeting notes are targeted for the public
 
** McQ: yes, they got announced on pmc mailing list
 
* no PMC call next week due to a holiday
 
  
<hr/>
+
'''September 23, 2015''' - Dani, John, Alex, Martin
'''Jun 17:''' - McQ, Dani, Jeff, John A, (Martin joined just as we were hanging up)
+
* Dani: '''JDT Core''' - Co-lead going to step up
* Dani asked whether the PMC had internal discussion of new committer votes
+
* Dani: '''API Removal Discussion'''
** A: Generally the PMC member for the component gives +1, unless they feel the need to bring the discussion to the rest of the PMC
+
** Q1: When do we actually delete API? What's the benefit compared to the pain that we cause ?
* Jeff mentioned that we should remind the teams to do retrospectives
+
*** Example of methods that don't do anything any more or do wrong things -- those should be removed
 +
*** Example TableTreeViewer : Continue having the API doesn't hurt, there's no significant benefit removing it
 +
**** Alex: TableTree was completely broken on GTK for 2-3 years ... keeping such components that don't work properly lowers the quality
 +
**** Dani: Is there actual proof of bugs ? Or could it be working fine on Windows RCP ? If it's deprecated, people use it at own risk; do we really need to break them, if it provides value to some people on some Platforms ?
 +
**** John: In TableTreeViewer case, EMF had some generic code (was unclear if the path was ever taken) and CDT could update easily
 +
*** '''Summary''': scheduling for removal is OK with good arguments. Give Adopters a chance to respond before removal takes place.
 +
 
 +
** Q2: '''How to deal with the versions?'''
 +
*** Dani: Updating the major causes major pain on everyone (adoption work), so this should be avoided
 +
**** Actively developed plugins will notice source breakage when recompiling anyways -- no need to update the major for them.
 +
**** For dormant plugins (not recompiled), everyone will break when updating the major although only few may be affected - is it worth notifying those small percentage that might break ?
 +
**** Plugins who don't care recompiling may have to live with ClassNotFoundException
 +
**** Tooling exists: API Use Scan Tools can discover incorrect API references that are not announced by the versions
 +
*** '''Summary:''' Handle the Major with care -- in most cases, the cost of updating the major is not justified by the benefit.
 +
 
 +
** John: '''Announcement''' When thinking about removing something, we should announce that far and wide and ask for feedback
 +
*** Martin: But which channel is as effective as actually removing it ? There's always who don't actually listen...
 +
*** John: Still, giving a possibility to listen is important. Agree that mentioning in the release docs is not enough.
 +
*** Dani: When making a release, also send message with a link to the removals page (for all removals that are planned)
 +
** John: Mechanisms for maintaining binary compatibility while only breaking source compatibility (but it's a lot of work!)
 +
*** Dani: Agree, in this case better just leave it in there
 +
 
 +
** Alex: What to do next time, can we remove more stuff ?
 +
*** Martin: Should be at the discretion of the committers. They do the work. If they see the need for removal, they should be allowed to do so (as long as they play by the rules, like early announcement). Need to define what the rules are.
 +
 
 +
** John: There was an interesting discussion on cross-project, asking for well-known points in time where major breakage can occur
 +
*** Eg release but without all the deprecated at certain well-known point in time eg every 3-5 years
 +
*** '''AI''' ''continue that discussion on the Architecture Council''
 +
 
 +
** '''Summary:''' Essentially do what we did, plus more communication upfront, allow people to respond before deletion happens (to avoid churn)
 +
*** Committers still need to be able to delete stuff when they find it necessary.
 +
*** Updating the major (or not) to be decided case by case, but in many cases "breaking everyone" is not justified against "notifying few dormant plugins".
 +
 
 +
* Alex: '''Bumping the minimum GTK version again''' (may cause issues on Platforms like AIX -- to be discussed when it's time)
 +
 
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Jun 10:''' - McQ, Martin, Dani, Steve, John A
+
'''September 16, 2015''' - John, Martin
* Welcome to Dani, John agrees to be here as a listening member for a while
+
* John: '''API Removal Discussion'''
* Sun Java 6u14 (May 25) broken for debugging because thread ID's are changed when garbage collector runs
+
** No urgency now -- changes have been reverted for now, and scheduled for 2017
** Clearly a Sun bug (also happens in jdb) but not yet confirmed by Sun
+
** Updating the major of a bundle knowingly breaks everyone/most adopters
** Described in Readme, but readme will only be available when a rebuild occurs
+
*** In the past, breaking changes have often been small enough to work without increasing the major
** Dani will send out a note tomorrow when they know more about other platforms
+
*** One can argue that removing TableTreeViewer is big enough to warrant updating the major
 +
** Versioning packages has not been done in the past due to the huge upcoming maintenance effort when starting to do so
 +
** "Release Version" is decoupled from "bundle versions" already (and may move to date-based versions eg "2016.1" with rolling updates moving forward
 +
** --&gt; will have more discussion next week
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Jun 3:''' - McQ, Martin, Steve, Jeff
+
'''September 9, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John, McQ
* McQ - asking Dani M to join the Eclipse PMC to represent JDT. PMC agrees. McQ will send a note to Mike Milinkovich / EMO.
+
* John: '''Planning Council Updates'''
* McQ - asking John A to represent the Eclipse Project on Planning Council
+
** 4 planned releases (March, June, September, December -- essentially end of each quarter) with flexible contents
** Jeff thinks that the PC rep should be a PMC member in order to have a strong bi-directional communication path.
+
** Mid December rather than end to avoid churn, so this one is a little shorter
** McQ proposes asking John to join the PMC calls for communication.
+
** Only June is "major" - allowing to drop off, or breaking changes; others are "minor"
** Martin agrees provided that John is OK with this delegate role.
+
** McQ want to reduce the number of simultaneous streams -- if "master" is more stable more often that's OK, but avoid too many "live" streams
* Steve {{bug|277713}} critical bug, probably more critical bugs to triage - defer to arch call
+
 
* Jeff Target Provisioning discussion
+
* Software is getting more important - would be good to better support multicore
 +
 
 +
* John: '''IntelliJ change in licensing / sales model'''
 +
** Many eclipse-positive comments on the announcement blog
 +
** Possibility putting Money on Eclipse Development may become interesting for companies in this context
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''May 27:''' - McQ, Martin, Steve
+
'''September 2, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John
* {{bug|277735}} releng.tools copyright tool - Martin would like to see it released. Discuss in Arch call.
+
* Dani: '''EclipseDay India''' on Saturday, 200 attendees wanted to join, hat to cut to 150
 +
** Keynote by Mike Milinkovich - large Community
 +
 
 +
* Dani: '''Policy for and Mars.2'''
 +
** Do we want to stick to the "Service" model or allow feature updates ?
 +
** Mars.1 winding down -- sticking to "Critical Fixes Only" for that
 +
** Too much in the maintenance stream causes risk of defocus ... are there relevant features that are worth the extra effort ?
 +
** Dani: Suggests to require PMC Approval for adding a feature in - example candidate: Improvements for HiDPI
 +
*** Also: What about version number (2nd digit version update), IP disclosures, Translations ... ?
 +
*** Dani would suggest sticking to 3rd digit update only in the marketing release number; but a Release Review would be needed
 +
 
 +
'''August 26, 2015''' -
 +
* Dani/Alex/Martin can't join (traveling)
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''May 20:''' - McQ, Martin
+
'''August 19, 2015''' - Alex, Dani
* PC Lead: John A suggested to represent Eclipse
+
* nothing to discuss
* Linux: New Launchers built, didn't start on Linux ... I-build was broken, want to know why
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''May 13:''' - McQ, Martin, Jeff, Steve, Philippe
+
'''August 12, 2015''' - John, Dani
* {{bug|273660}} Common Navigator: Pipelining issues with JDT + CDT
+
* John asked whether we run on Windows 10
 +
** Dani: yes, the team already tested on it a few weeks ago. Runs smoothly one bug so far. Browser widget works despite new browser (Edge)
 +
** ''Martin (added after the meeting): A CDT update is needed to keep the Terminal from hanging (see {{bug|474327}}, will release with Mars.1). Got some duplicates already. Workaround is switch the Win10 Console to "Legacy Mode".''
 +
* Dani would like to get plan feedback by Friday EOD
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''May 6:''' - McQ, Martin, Jeff
+
'''August 5, 2015''' - McQ, John, Dani, Alex, Martin
* McQ PDE Feature Request
+
* PC meeting later today (planning calendar, calling SR1/2 "Update 1/2" instead
** New Target Platform came in late
+
** adding another release before Christmas might be a next step - even if Platform contributes identical bits
** PMC agrees with trying to fix this, but want to see the final patch before +1
+
 
* McQ Testplan
+
* Dani: '''[[Eclipse/Mars Retrospective]]'''
** People going to test their own because test plan is too complex
+
** Move more components to Tycho build? (Would still need Ant to test against final build/bits)
* Jeff Splash Screen
+
** Contribution Review Dates: joined by some components but not all
 +
** Error Reporter: Interesting to look at top ten but the sheer number is too big
 +
*** John - based on Orion experience with similar error reporting :
 +
**** Looking at changes in reported issues is more interesting than looking at reports themselves
 +
**** Reports help getting contributions (But, Dani finds that "just adding a null check" is often not what's desired for Java .. though helpful for Javascript)
 +
 
 +
* Dani: Foundation IP team doesn't require updating copyright notices per contribution any more (since that information is in git anyways)
 +
** The Project has to agree
 +
** Some contributors like to have their name in the source -- that's OK, no requirement to remove author information, but no requirement to add either
 +
** Won't remove existing lists (they never claimed to be complete, since there always was the "...and others" copyright notice
 +
** Dani to sent [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02422.html request for voting]
 +
 
 +
* Dani: Switching to '''Jetty 9.3.x (which requires JRE 8)'''
 +
** JRE 8 from Oracle (and also from IBM) exists for all Reference Platforms
 +
** Except Solaris, because we only support Solaris 32-bit and the JRE only exists as 64-bit
 +
** But the Plan for Neon is to have 64-bit Solaris support
 +
** New Language features in Java 8 are adopted, contributors would like to start using Java 8
 +
** McQ: In the past, staying on older Java was desired to enable more widespread use ... today, this argument does not seem valid any more, in fact likely more contributions / community is enabled by moving to Java 8
 +
** Dani: Only concern is some "non reference" Platforms like HP-UX might not have JREs initially; but that's OK as long as the reference platforms are good
 +
** '''AGREEMENT''' to move to JRE 8 and allow projects to use Java 8 in their code.
 +
 
 +
* Dani: Looking for a contributor for SWT improvements for GTK3
 +
 
 +
* Martin: '''libwebkitgtk-3 on Ubuntu 14 forcing GTK 2''' not working ?
 +
** Alex: Using libwebkitgtk-4 which is much more stable, but not implementing the full SWT API
 +
** Most distros don't ship libwebkit for gtk-2 any more since it's not supported upstream any more and has many security issues
 +
 
 +
* Alex: '''Build SWT at the Foundation'''
 +
** Work with the Foundation going well, expect to have RHEL machines deployed at the foundation next month
  
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Apr 29:''' - McQ, Martin, Steve
+
'''July 15, 22 and 29, 2015''' -- no meeting
* Martin: Java6 ref platform - anything between 6u3 and 6u10 (exclusive) was broken, anything after 6u10 (inclusive) has license issues in [http://java.sun.com/javase/6/javase-6-thirdpartyreadme.txt thirdpartylicensereadme.txt].
+
** Suggestion: Dont update the plan document yet, but start running tests with 6u13 on Linux. '''AI McQ''' talk to Kim about this.
+
** '''AI Martin''' make a final attempt to get more info out of Sun.
+
* Steve: Solaris x86 - looks good but some problems with X server
+
* McQ: API Deprecation Policy {{bug|261544}} - '''AI McQ''' synthesise some summary and comment on the bug
+
* M7: Testers found some interesting prolbems with launching Eclipse from Eclipse (depending on VM, BIDI chars in paths dont work)
+
  
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''July 8, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, John, Martin, Alex
 +
* John: '''Cross-Language Tooling Discussion''' on the eclipse.org-architecture-council and ide-dev mailing lists
 +
* decided to cancel the upcoming July meetings
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Apr 22:''' - McQ, Martin, Steve, Philippe
+
'''July 1, 2015''' -- no meeting
* Steve: Solaris x86 - got a Browser running, looking good,
+
* Steve: Cocoa Sheets - new API - Dialogs associated with a Window: Dialog slides down from title bar
+
** Clients need to opt in through new API because they need to specify a dialog as being adequate for sheet support
+
* Martin: Maintenance builds post SR2
+
** experience in the past has shown only very few, surgically isolated patches so the problem is probably smaller than anticipated
+
** don't want anything produced to appear official -- anything that appears official MUST result in a test pass and this must be avoided
+
** it makes sense to talk about this in the context of "Release Train" and not only "Eclipse Platform" -- Martin filed {{bug|273262}} against the AC
+
* Martin has some update on Sun Java 6 -- will update {{bug|261724}}
+
  
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''June 24, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Alex
 +
* Dani: '''Java 9''' - <a href="http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/eclipse-java%E2%84%A2-9-support-beta-mars">EAR Feature Patch</a> on the Marketplace NOW
 +
** No JARs any more - JRE is doing things internally using "jimage" format; updated search etc to create projects and work against them
 +
** If the Jimage filesystem provider isn't backported, one has to run the IDE on Java9 in order to code Java9
 +
** Modules are just a list of packages (and can refer to other modules) - no real JSR describing the plan yet - seems like just a replacement of "Profiles" (and JARs)
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Apr 15:''' - McQ, Jeff, Martin, Steve
+
'''June 17, 2015''' - Dani, John, Martin, Alex
* McQ: '''Solaris x86''' - OK if we get the machine up and running until Friday, too late for swapping reference platform otherways
+
* John: '''Mars''' Platform in good shape for Mars - EPP respin for Error Reporting
* '''Polish List''' [[Polish3.5]] - Some developers don't have time for polish items. For now, it's just a list such that we *know* what's coming up.
+
* Dani: '''Crashes with Java 8''' - Potentially will add to the online README
** Martin wondering why we need a separate wiki page, bugzilla query should be enough?
+
** Happens in the JIT, with latest Oracle Java 8 (with 8 Cores and very specific circumstances)
** Who owns the Polish list - Eclipse Project Committers. We capture items that we find "stupid" when using Eclipse ourselves.
+
** See {{Bug|465693}} - Probably https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078262
* '''Maintenance builds after 3.4'''
+
* Alex: '''XDG Application''' - looks like Docker but a similar idea
** IBM will never consume any community builds: want the absolute minimum of required fixes
+
** Environment description of the runtime - helps specifying the line-up of library versions that we test against and use
** If a fix shows up in any IBM product, then it is on a bug somewhere
+
** Big part of GNOME / GTK already pushing for it, might make sense to consider alignment
** But fixes are never cumulative
+
** GNOME working towards compiling with a really old compiler, such that the physically identical bits can run against a large set of distros
** Martin thinks that a first step would be well-defined markup of such "released-to-product" fixes.
+
** See https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps
** Another next step is allowing Eclipse builds by the Community -- we can do anything that's not making Kim's life harder.
+
** But if you want to try it out please read https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2015/06/17/testing-rawhide-apps-using-xdg-app/
** How to proceed with communications: open bugs, bugzilla discussions.
+
  
 +
<hr/>
 +
 +
'''June 10, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
 +
* Dani: 4.5RC4 looking good, no more fixes planned
 +
* Dani: Working on Java 9 feature patch
 +
* Alex: PC discussing a change in the release train
 +
** Current common ground seems to be a request for more release points, and projects could decide whether they do features or maintenance
 +
** From Platform point of view, stability is key. Some key contributors not interested doing
 +
** Martin: How to also cater to contributors who want their contributions released soon ?
 +
*** Martin Idea: With Tycho, building the Platform is easier so ask contributors build themselves
 +
*** Or, open up a new "experimental" stream ?
 +
*** Dani Idea: Market milestone builds differently, as "fully consumable" would serve the same purpose
 +
* Martin: Tested eclipse-installer (Oomph), looking really really good now
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Apr 1:''' - McQ, Jeff, Martin, Steve, Philippe
+
'''June 3, 2015''' - Alex, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
* McQ: Solaris x86 (recommend building since Sun helped at Eclipsecon), Perf results (not trustworthy on Windows?)
+
* Dani: '''Mars Endgame'''
* Martin: M-builds beyond 3.4.2
+
* Dani: Please vote for release review
** Two problems: (a) provide a build system that the community can use, and (b) provide a platform for accumulating fixes easily without risking version collisions etc
+
*** The risk of (b) is high that as a result we'd have some low-quality sea of incompatible fixes. We better don't go with this.
+
** Other solution is allow to cherry-pick on source level - just provide a new target milestone in bugzilla, product builders cherry-pick patches they want to apply and do so locally.
+
* Jeff: OSGi tooling; future plans around build
+
** We need to run builds ourselves (see also above) - e.g. equinox sdk feature is in some internal repository
+
** PDE build has stretched pretty far over time.. what to do with it
+
*** Needs to be one of the main plan items for 3.6, but don't want to wait that long
+
*** SAP perhaps to help out with staffing
+
* Boris to host the arch call since Steve, McQ, Philippe all cannot join
+
  
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''May 20, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ
 +
* Dani: '''Security Update''' - Platform work done, Orbit updated, reached out to Wayne and other affected projects.
 +
* Dani: '''RC2 Build''' - too many bugs assigned, Lars on Vacation, Dani will fill in
 +
* McQ: '''Too Many Platforms Built?''' - Who's really hurt by "too many builds" ?
 +
** Will meet with Mike & Foundation tomorrow, Alex is also interested (Dani to check).
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
'''Mar 18:''' - McQ, Steve, Martin
+
'''May 13, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Martin
* no arch next week due to EclipseCon
+
* John, Dani - Mars Endgame looking good
* McQ found a performance test that is 8000% slower
+
* Alex - {{bug|465874}} Lucene 5 looking good, almost done - Ready to commit as soon as CQs are in and Mars+1 is open
** teams are overwhelmed (but remind them to check performance tests)
+
* JDT for Java 9 - will need a wider discussion with EMO on make it easier to publish the work, e.g. in normal builds
* Martin reminded us about use of [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-committers/msg00575.html Parallel IP for Mature Projects] and JSch-0.1.41
+
** need to identify uses on the download links (or also inside the downloads?)
+
** EMO has not developed the policy yet
+
** McQ: "Q: Should we just not use the mechanism?"
+
** Downstream consumers may need to test against new lib features early. Just for test and experimentation, not for consumption: want parallel IP in I-builds
+
** McQ: Milestones are a corner case -- some consumers use these in products!
+
** Parallel IP is a tool for projects who want it. A clear policy is one thing. Guidelines for projects to adopt it or not is another thing -- may depend on the number and kind of consumers.
+
** Result: Martin to Bring up that topic on the [[Architecture Council/Meetings/March 22 F2F EclipseCon 2009]],
+
*** Example issues: can't put it in for I-build and remove for Milestone S-build
+
  
<hr />
+
<hr/>
 +
'''May 6, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, John
 +
* Dani: '''Java 9 timing''' - slight delay
 +
* Dani: RC1 preps
 +
** 2-day test pass went fine - 2 severe issues found, will be addressed
 +
** Request to watch PMC mailing list for API exceptions and defect approvals
 +
* John: '''PC Discussion on Release Cycles'''
 +
** Multiple releases per year PLUS maintenance streams seems like overkill
 +
** Consider an approach like Orion that just moves constantly forward
 +
** Especially for the Platform, being rock solid is most important. Still to attract new contributors we need to allow more frequent "feature updates".
 +
*** A model where both "stable/maintenance" _and_ "features" are contributed to the train might be too much work/overhead.
 +
*** Consider a model like Ubuntu, ... with some release numbers being "stable/LTS base" and others being "in-between feature releases" ?
 +
*** Consider a model like LTS for maintenance fixes / aside mainstream just moving forward ?
  
'''Mar 11:''' - McQ, Steve, Jeff, Martin
+
 
* Martin - '''{{bug|227055}} and late API additions'''
+
'''April 15, 2015''' - Dani, John, McQ, Alex, Martin
** McQ: after m6 is too late if it has any downstream impact (changing behavior, deleting things, ...). Plain API additions may slip a week.
+
* Dani: '''Java 1.7 Changes'''
** Steve: If new API has effect on performance and polish, may look more favorably.
+
** Some bundles have been moved to a 1.7 BREE by new committers, even after API freeze
** If going in after M6, it needs to go through the process (e-mail and public discussion on eclipse-pmc list).
+
** Rule has always been "we move up when there's a reason to move up". We won't move up without reason.
** Strict API Tooling checks to be enabled next week
+
*** Dani: Moving the BREE may even cause API changes, so should only be done when incrementing the minor version (5% risk)
* McQ - '''state of M6'''; some late UI things to review
+
*** Alex: Such updates allow staying current and not get to "rewrite is needed" state (thus needed) but has to happen before M6 (API freeze)
** Some low-risk polish Cocoa items for Eclipsecon (enablers)
+
** Alex suggest not accepting additional changes, but not reverting either (to avoid churn)
** Still changes in p2 (after m6), but stabilizing
+
* Dani: '''Batik 1.6 update'''
* Martin/Jeff - '''New Target Platform Page''' may require more tweaking - risk of breaking community workflows!
+
** E.g. adding a directory to the target platform; Jeff uses target platforms a lot, so he's likely more exposed than most of the Community... 10 to 15 locations with hundreds of bundles...
+
** Related to the {{bug|224145}} p2 "extension location" problem which broke user workflows. Don't want to have such breakage again.  
+
* Jeff - '''Status on Galileo Must do's''' - deferred to next week
+
* McQ - '''p2 OSGi OBR Repositories'''
+
** Jeff: OSGi wants to foster bundle store / bundle repositories, and specify a repository standard (long-standing RFE112 never been ratified)
+
** Similar to p2, but does have some potential issues
+
** Ideally, Equinox would be the reference impl of whatever standard comes up... but got a staffing problem, how to get the solution standardized that we need.
+
*** Writing a p2 OBR repository adapter is not hard, but OBR repos won't be able to eat p2 metadata
+
** p2 doesn't care about XML format whereas OBR specifies the XML. p2 got more sophisticated API model. Jeff doesn't have access to the latest spec.
+
* Steve wants Eclipsecon demos to be done on '''Cocoa''', will expedite any bugfixes (please do file them!). Jeff needs browser integration.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 +
'''April 8, 2015''' - Dani, Martin, Alex, John, McQ
 +
* Dani: '''Batik''' - Platform is good, Train may need to update, perhaps updating one bundle only would suffice. John will follow up.
 +
* Alex: '''SWT for GTK 3 News'''
 +
** GTK port finally decoupled from X11 - it renders on Wayland now, can switch the renderer to a pure HTML one
 +
** This opens up opportunities (but depends on hosts that have GTK).
  
'''Mar 4:''' - McQ, Steve, Jeff, Philippe, Martin
 
  
* Upgrade 3.4 -> 3.5
+
<hr/>
** Will we be able to support this in p2?
+
'''April 1, 2015''' - McQ, Alex, Martin, Dani (Regrets: John travelling)
*** Nope, needed hooks already in previous release (ie. needed them in 3.4 to be used by 3.5)
+
* Alex: '''GTK 3.16''' seeing issues again - fixed some crashes, but scrolling is still entirely broken
** Problems include replacing the Eclipse .exe
+
** SWT uses a number of things that GTK declares as "implementation detail"
** Is this an important use case?  There is no band width to solve this problem in 3.5
+
* PMC approval on piggyback CQ's (AC question forwarded by John)
** it's a good showcase for p2 technology
+
** Dani sent [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02332.html our position] to John in order to update the AC
** idea: put in the low level hooks for 3.5.1 and use them next time (ie. 3.5 -> 3.6)
+
** Did Update Manager ever do this?
+
*** Jeff: It does not
+
  
* Deprecating Mac carbon?
+
<hr/>
** Apple claims Cocoa is the future
+
'''March 18, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John
** 3.5 will be the last version of Eclipse where Carbon is under active development
+
* John: '''EclipseCon''' - Bigger this year due to LocationTech (750 attendees)
*** But will maintain for 3.6 and 3.7
+
** Mark Reinhold keynote and "after-session" on Java 9
** Q: Has Apple officially deprecated carbon?
+
** Much interest in Orion JS tooling / editor, also on desktop
*** No but they have down played it (ie. no 64-bit support for carbon)
+
** Public face of Eclipse Platform at the conference was much more diverse than in the past (Lars Vogel, Max Anderson, Google ...)
** Should there be an official deprecation policy for platforms?
+
* Dani: {{bug|458730}} '''Mars Plan Update'''
 +
* Dani: '''e4 project leadership''' approved by EMO
 +
* Dani: Szymon Brandys resigned as Platform/Resources co-lead. Need to +1 on the mailing list
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
  
'''Feb 25:''' - McQ, Steve, Martin, Philippe
+
'''March 11, 2015 - no meeting (EclipseCon)'''
  
* AC "committers should know" mail
+
<hr/>
** '''Following external links''' McQ why not introduce some Javascript on the server that warns users automatically when they follow an external link?
+
** Components to projects flattening (not on our plate at the time)
+
* Steve Target milestones for Eclipse project
+
* BZ patches to be flagged when they contain API
+
* '''N-builds broken''' over the weekend (again) - 3 weekends in a row - no people currently who are willing to work during the weekend
+
** Hudson might help eventually, for now using e4 builds as the guinea pig
+
* '''UI Forms has no committers''' - opportunity for Community to become committer
+
** migrate off (using internal browser instead)
+
** no critical bugs, less than 125 interesting bugs
+
** long-term future is e4 with css/styling and declarative ui
+
* '''Performance:''' No news (not yet while closing down API)
+
** Philippe thinks that the performance milestone must be earlier since performance might touch on API. We're losing memory because rebasing
+
** McQ - this cycle we had a performance run in M2, this year we're in a better position than last year
+
  
'''Feb 18:''' - no meeting
+
'''March 4, 2015''' - Dani, McQ, Martin, John
 +
* Dani: '''e4 leadership''' - Dani will volunteer to co-lead
 +
* Dani: '''BREEs''' - documentation about how to pick the EE
 +
** Recommending the "earliest generally supported JRE that provides the capabilities you need"
 +
** Would like an URL on the page pointing to the most recent plan (talking to Wayne)
 +
* John: '''greatfix contest'''
 +
** Dani: Working well - some very small contributions but some also very large (eg Customize Perspective fixes)
 +
* John: '''EclipseCon''' - numbers looking good; join Planning Council Breakfast as delegate for Dani
  
'''Feb 11:'''
+
<hr/>
 +
'''February 25, 2015''' - Dani, Martin McQ
 +
* No topics
  
'''Feb 4:'''
+
<hr/>
 +
'''February 18, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
 +
* Alex: '''Building Native Launchers'''
 +
** Current way of building is kinda unpredictable - even if getting some agreement on versions to use, results are kinda unpredictable
 +
** Pushing towards Hudson RHEL builders at least at the EF to get more transparency and automation - attempt to mimic the infrastructure at IBM
 +
** Looking at 3 primary architectures (at the EF) for Linux vs. secondary architectures (non-public builders potentially)
 +
* Dani: Great initiative, but other (non-EF) builders must not be broken
 +
** EF doesn't allow any commercial tools (but currently, e.g. Windows launchers are built with MSVS)
 +
* Alex is willing to spend time to get Linux builds running; but can't help with other architectures
 +
** Martin: great approach - for Windows, using a cross-compiler on Linux might be interesting (after Linux native works)
 +
* Alex: This is just phase one - getting rid of the binaries in git repos might be phase 2 (since the checked-in binaries easily cause inconsistencies between Java and Native side)
 +
** Martin: Checked-in binaries help consumers and contributors who just want to make a Java change
 +
** Dani: Checked-in binaries are also used for comparing build results for expected vs accidental changes
 +
 
 +
* Alex: '''{{bug|459399}} - Policy for recommended minimum execution environments for bundles'''
 +
** Dani: It works today
 +
*** To run Eclipse, Java 8 or Java 9 can be used (minimum BREE has no impact)
 +
*** To modify the source, a new JRE can be used but then the Execution Environment Descriptions need to be installed
 +
** Policy as discussed in the past: Each project can increase the BREE if there is a real need (such as generifying) and no upstream clients are broken
 +
*** But don't change the BREE without justification -- changing the BREE always has some effect, such as new warnings that would need to be addressed
 +
*** Suggested BREE for new bundles has already been changed by Lars
 +
* Alex: Even for bundles in "maintenance mode", old BREE causes issues for people who build from source (who have to change compilers etc)
 +
* No conclusion so far (Alex and Dani disagree)
 +
 
 +
* Dani: '''e4 leadership'''
 +
** Mature bits being moved to Eclipse - e4 remaining as an incubator to keep alive for experiments with low entry barrier
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 +
'''February 11, 2015''' - Dani, Alex
 +
* no topics
  
'''Jan 28:'''
+
<hr/>
  
* Java 6
+
'''February 4, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
** move reference platform to Sun 6u11
+
* Alex: With GTK-3.15.[345] , Eclipse is entirely unusable
*** problem(?): Sun added 3 new items added that are licensed LGPL or GPL
+
** Alex has some dirty workarounds to make it start, but still many issues like trees not painted, ...
*** [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] Martin added comment to {{bug|261724}} to identify this issue
+
** Crash on startup identified to be GTK bug. Fix to be released in 3.15.6 https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?id=edec64cda3d4518b4e87d5ea5d287d4570ba9933
* ICU 4.0
+
* Dani: Working on Solaris 64-bit
** we will stay with 4.0
+
* Deprecation Policy
+
** still under discussion, {{bug|261544}}
+
* Use of internal provisional
+
** seems to be some consensus about *not* requiring this, {{bug|261874}}
+
* JDT co-leadership
+
** what is the process?
+
*** Jeff: vote in community; then propose to the PMC
+
*** Would like to get Dani Meghert involved.
+
*** Philippe will check development process documents
+
* Cocoa port
+
** Looking good
+
** Taking early access off and making it the "first" choice for Mac downloads
+
* Milestone progress / 3.4.2
+
** Need to discuss M5 in arch call (should have done this last week)
+
** Should always remind the team in the arch call of upcoming deadlines
+
** Performance issues that need API to fix have to happen by M6
+
*** Teams should understand performance results (will be discussed in a couple of weeks)
+
* Re: Reference Platforms
+
** Java6 on Solaris
+
*** Martin's company would like to support this
+
*** [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] filed {{bug|262907}} to discuss process and practices around reference platforms
+
  
'''Jan 21:'''
+
<hr/>
  
* How should we track meeting minutes topic - Wiki
+
'''January 28, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, John
* Provisional API conventions - Jeff working on {{bug|261874}} for discussion at the AC
+
* Dani: Switch Mac OS X 10.9 with 10.10 in Mars target environments
** should there be a tag in the Javadoc (ie. "experimental")?
+
** No objections
** Jeff wants to keep the concerns "conventions" vs "Javadoc" separate
+
* Alex: Looking for any Eclipse related activity @Fosdem
** Jeff, "... Javadoc should not be generated for provisional ..."
+
<hr/>
** Martin disagrees, "... need feedback and discussion for new API ..."
+
* What is the '''role of the PMC lead?'''
+
** global view of components/processes
+
** organize architecture call, ensure we are on track
+
** spark conversations (ie. M5 is feature freeze)
+
* '''Reference platforms'''
+
** we should choose JDK1.6, "update 11" rather than "update 4"
+
** around "RC time", solidify the reference platform (it is the one we are testing on)
+
  
'''Jan 14:'''
+
'''January 21, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ
 +
* Alex: '''Process for allowing non-committers extended bugzilla privileges (for bug triage)?'''
 +
** Dani: Yes a process exists. Send bugzilla username to Dani.
 +
* Alex: '''New resource for helping with SWT'''
 +
* Dani: '''Platform/UI co-lead'''
 +
* Dani: Solaris: Java 8 will only support 64 bits on both Intel and SPARC --&gt; IBM SWT Team considering to invest in getting patches in for 64-bit Solaris
 +
 
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''January 14, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John
 +
* Dani: Update on Platform/UI Leadership: Daniel Rolka left IBM and for now has no time to contribute. He stepped down as co-lead and nominated Lars Vogel
 +
* Dani: Solaris x86 64-bit support - patches exist, but no machine available. No luck to get one from Oracle or via Eclipse Foundation. We will not support Solaris x86 64-bit unless someone makes a machine available
 +
<hr/>
 +
 
 +
'''January 7, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John
 +
* Dani: '''Platform/UI Leadership'''
 +
* John: '''Git security issue''' - pick up a patch for Jgit in the packages before SR2? - Mostly an EPP
 +
<hr/>
  
* PMC component ownership x bugzilla pmc authorization
+
= Archive =
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2014 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2014]]
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2013 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2013]]
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2012 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2012]]
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2011 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2011]]
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2010 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2010]]
 +
* [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2009 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2009]]

Revision as of 04:52, 1 October 2015

Documents

Some documents written and/or used by the PMC:

Meeting Schedule

The Eclipse Project PMC has a weekly phone meeting every Wednesday at 10.30am EST.

Meeting Minutes

September 30, 2015 - McQ, John, Alex, Dani

  • Dani: will send a note to PMC list asking to approve new Debug leadership (Sarika)
  • Dani: we should finalize our API removal discussion from last week
    • agreed that APIs marked for removal have to be annotated with @noreference
    • agreed that components should be allowed to remove API but they have to provide good reasons
    • agreed that we won't allow to delete APIs simply because they are deprecated
    • agreed that the PMC will decide case by case i.e. there will be no general rule
    • regarding version numbering we decided to also decide this case by case
    • Dani to update the removal document and have it reviewed by the PMC

September 23, 2015 - Dani, John, Alex, Martin

  • Dani: JDT Core - Co-lead going to step up
  • Dani: API Removal Discussion
    • Q1: When do we actually delete API? What's the benefit compared to the pain that we cause ?
      • Example of methods that don't do anything any more or do wrong things -- those should be removed
      • Example TableTreeViewer : Continue having the API doesn't hurt, there's no significant benefit removing it
        • Alex: TableTree was completely broken on GTK for 2-3 years ... keeping such components that don't work properly lowers the quality
        • Dani: Is there actual proof of bugs ? Or could it be working fine on Windows RCP ? If it's deprecated, people use it at own risk; do we really need to break them, if it provides value to some people on some Platforms ?
        • John: In TableTreeViewer case, EMF had some generic code (was unclear if the path was ever taken) and CDT could update easily
      • Summary: scheduling for removal is OK with good arguments. Give Adopters a chance to respond before removal takes place.
    • Q2: How to deal with the versions?
      • Dani: Updating the major causes major pain on everyone (adoption work), so this should be avoided
        • Actively developed plugins will notice source breakage when recompiling anyways -- no need to update the major for them.
        • For dormant plugins (not recompiled), everyone will break when updating the major although only few may be affected - is it worth notifying those small percentage that might break ?
        • Plugins who don't care recompiling may have to live with ClassNotFoundException
        • Tooling exists: API Use Scan Tools can discover incorrect API references that are not announced by the versions
      • Summary: Handle the Major with care -- in most cases, the cost of updating the major is not justified by the benefit.
    • John: Announcement When thinking about removing something, we should announce that far and wide and ask for feedback
      • Martin: But which channel is as effective as actually removing it ? There's always who don't actually listen...
      • John: Still, giving a possibility to listen is important. Agree that mentioning in the release docs is not enough.
      • Dani: When making a release, also send message with a link to the removals page (for all removals that are planned)
    • John: Mechanisms for maintaining binary compatibility while only breaking source compatibility (but it's a lot of work!)
      • Dani: Agree, in this case better just leave it in there
    • Alex: What to do next time, can we remove more stuff ?
      • Martin: Should be at the discretion of the committers. They do the work. If they see the need for removal, they should be allowed to do so (as long as they play by the rules, like early announcement). Need to define what the rules are.
    • John: There was an interesting discussion on cross-project, asking for well-known points in time where major breakage can occur
      • Eg release but without all the deprecated at certain well-known point in time eg every 3-5 years
      • AI continue that discussion on the Architecture Council
    • Summary: Essentially do what we did, plus more communication upfront, allow people to respond before deletion happens (to avoid churn)
      • Committers still need to be able to delete stuff when they find it necessary.
      • Updating the major (or not) to be decided case by case, but in many cases "breaking everyone" is not justified against "notifying few dormant plugins".
  • Alex: Bumping the minimum GTK version again (may cause issues on Platforms like AIX -- to be discussed when it's time)



September 16, 2015 - John, Martin

  • John: API Removal Discussion
    • No urgency now -- changes have been reverted for now, and scheduled for 2017
    • Updating the major of a bundle knowingly breaks everyone/most adopters
      • In the past, breaking changes have often been small enough to work without increasing the major
      • One can argue that removing TableTreeViewer is big enough to warrant updating the major
    • Versioning packages has not been done in the past due to the huge upcoming maintenance effort when starting to do so
    • "Release Version" is decoupled from "bundle versions" already (and may move to date-based versions eg "2016.1" with rolling updates moving forward
    • --> will have more discussion next week

September 9, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, John, McQ

  • John: Planning Council Updates
    • 4 planned releases (March, June, September, December -- essentially end of each quarter) with flexible contents
    • Mid December rather than end to avoid churn, so this one is a little shorter
    • Only June is "major" - allowing to drop off, or breaking changes; others are "minor"
    • McQ want to reduce the number of simultaneous streams -- if "master" is more stable more often that's OK, but avoid too many "live" streams
  • Software is getting more important - would be good to better support multicore
  • John: IntelliJ change in licensing / sales model
    • Many eclipse-positive comments on the announcement blog
    • Possibility putting Money on Eclipse Development may become interesting for companies in this context

September 2, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, John

  • Dani: EclipseDay India on Saturday, 200 attendees wanted to join, hat to cut to 150
    • Keynote by Mike Milinkovich - large Community
  • Dani: Policy for and Mars.2
    • Do we want to stick to the "Service" model or allow feature updates ?
    • Mars.1 winding down -- sticking to "Critical Fixes Only" for that
    • Too much in the maintenance stream causes risk of defocus ... are there relevant features that are worth the extra effort ?
    • Dani: Suggests to require PMC Approval for adding a feature in - example candidate: Improvements for HiDPI
      • Also: What about version number (2nd digit version update), IP disclosures, Translations ... ?
      • Dani would suggest sticking to 3rd digit update only in the marketing release number; but a Release Review would be needed

August 26, 2015 -

  • Dani/Alex/Martin can't join (traveling)

August 19, 2015 - Alex, Dani

  • nothing to discuss

August 12, 2015 - John, Dani

  • John asked whether we run on Windows 10
    • Dani: yes, the team already tested on it a few weeks ago. Runs smoothly one bug so far. Browser widget works despite new browser (Edge)
    • Martin (added after the meeting): A CDT update is needed to keep the Terminal from hanging (see bug 474327, will release with Mars.1). Got some duplicates already. Workaround is switch the Win10 Console to "Legacy Mode".
  • Dani would like to get plan feedback by Friday EOD

August 5, 2015 - McQ, John, Dani, Alex, Martin

  • PC meeting later today (planning calendar, calling SR1/2 "Update 1/2" instead
    • adding another release before Christmas might be a next step - even if Platform contributes identical bits
  • Dani: Eclipse/Mars Retrospective
    • Move more components to Tycho build? (Would still need Ant to test against final build/bits)
    • Contribution Review Dates: joined by some components but not all
    • Error Reporter: Interesting to look at top ten but the sheer number is too big
      • John - based on Orion experience with similar error reporting :
        • Looking at changes in reported issues is more interesting than looking at reports themselves
        • Reports help getting contributions (But, Dani finds that "just adding a null check" is often not what's desired for Java .. though helpful for Javascript)
  • Dani: Foundation IP team doesn't require updating copyright notices per contribution any more (since that information is in git anyways)
    • The Project has to agree
    • Some contributors like to have their name in the source -- that's OK, no requirement to remove author information, but no requirement to add either
    • Won't remove existing lists (they never claimed to be complete, since there always was the "...and others" copyright notice
    • Dani to sent request for voting
  • Dani: Switching to Jetty 9.3.x (which requires JRE 8)
    • JRE 8 from Oracle (and also from IBM) exists for all Reference Platforms
    • Except Solaris, because we only support Solaris 32-bit and the JRE only exists as 64-bit
    • But the Plan for Neon is to have 64-bit Solaris support
    • New Language features in Java 8 are adopted, contributors would like to start using Java 8
    • McQ: In the past, staying on older Java was desired to enable more widespread use ... today, this argument does not seem valid any more, in fact likely more contributions / community is enabled by moving to Java 8
    • Dani: Only concern is some "non reference" Platforms like HP-UX might not have JREs initially; but that's OK as long as the reference platforms are good
    • AGREEMENT to move to JRE 8 and allow projects to use Java 8 in their code.
  • Dani: Looking for a contributor for SWT improvements for GTK3
  • Martin: libwebkitgtk-3 on Ubuntu 14 forcing GTK 2 not working ?
    • Alex: Using libwebkitgtk-4 which is much more stable, but not implementing the full SWT API
    • Most distros don't ship libwebkit for gtk-2 any more since it's not supported upstream any more and has many security issues
  • Alex: Build SWT at the Foundation
    • Work with the Foundation going well, expect to have RHEL machines deployed at the foundation next month



July 15, 22 and 29, 2015 -- no meeting


July 8, 2015 - McQ, Dani, John, Martin, Alex

  • John: Cross-Language Tooling Discussion on the eclipse.org-architecture-council and ide-dev mailing lists
  • decided to cancel the upcoming July meetings

July 1, 2015 -- no meeting


June 24, 2015 - McQ, Dani, Martin, Alex

  • Dani: Java 9 - <a href="http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/eclipse-java%E2%84%A2-9-support-beta-mars">EAR Feature Patch</a> on the Marketplace NOW
    • No JARs any more - JRE is doing things internally using "jimage" format; updated search etc to create projects and work against them
    • If the Jimage filesystem provider isn't backported, one has to run the IDE on Java9 in order to code Java9
    • Modules are just a list of packages (and can refer to other modules) - no real JSR describing the plan yet - seems like just a replacement of "Profiles" (and JARs)

June 17, 2015 - Dani, John, Martin, Alex


June 10, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin

  • Dani: 4.5RC4 looking good, no more fixes planned
  • Dani: Working on Java 9 feature patch
  • Alex: PC discussing a change in the release train
    • Current common ground seems to be a request for more release points, and projects could decide whether they do features or maintenance
    • From Platform point of view, stability is key. Some key contributors not interested doing
    • Martin: How to also cater to contributors who want their contributions released soon ?
      • Martin Idea: With Tycho, building the Platform is easier so ask contributors build themselves
      • Or, open up a new "experimental" stream ?
      • Dani Idea: Market milestone builds differently, as "fully consumable" would serve the same purpose
  • Martin: Tested eclipse-installer (Oomph), looking really really good now

June 3, 2015 - Alex, Dani, Martin, McQ, John

  • Dani: Mars Endgame
  • Dani: Please vote for release review

May 20, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ

  • Dani: Security Update - Platform work done, Orbit updated, reached out to Wayne and other affected projects.
  • Dani: RC2 Build - too many bugs assigned, Lars on Vacation, Dani will fill in
  • McQ: Too Many Platforms Built? - Who's really hurt by "too many builds" ?
    • Will meet with Mike & Foundation tomorrow, Alex is also interested (Dani to check).

May 13, 2015 - McQ, John, Alex, Martin

  • John, Dani - Mars Endgame looking good
  • Alex - bug 465874 Lucene 5 looking good, almost done - Ready to commit as soon as CQs are in and Mars+1 is open
  • JDT for Java 9 - will need a wider discussion with EMO on make it easier to publish the work, e.g. in normal builds

May 6, 2015 - McQ, Dani, Martin, John

  • Dani: Java 9 timing - slight delay
  • Dani: RC1 preps
    • 2-day test pass went fine - 2 severe issues found, will be addressed
    • Request to watch PMC mailing list for API exceptions and defect approvals
  • John: PC Discussion on Release Cycles
    • Multiple releases per year PLUS maintenance streams seems like overkill
    • Consider an approach like Orion that just moves constantly forward
    • Especially for the Platform, being rock solid is most important. Still to attract new contributors we need to allow more frequent "feature updates".
      • A model where both "stable/maintenance" _and_ "features" are contributed to the train might be too much work/overhead.
      • Consider a model like Ubuntu, ... with some release numbers being "stable/LTS base" and others being "in-between feature releases" ?
      • Consider a model like LTS for maintenance fixes / aside mainstream just moving forward ?


April 15, 2015 - Dani, John, McQ, Alex, Martin

  • Dani: Java 1.7 Changes
    • Some bundles have been moved to a 1.7 BREE by new committers, even after API freeze
    • Rule has always been "we move up when there's a reason to move up". We won't move up without reason.
      • Dani: Moving the BREE may even cause API changes, so should only be done when incrementing the minor version (5% risk)
      • Alex: Such updates allow staying current and not get to "rewrite is needed" state (thus needed) but has to happen before M6 (API freeze)
    • Alex suggest not accepting additional changes, but not reverting either (to avoid churn)
  • Dani: Batik 1.6 update

April 8, 2015 - Dani, Martin, Alex, John, McQ

  • Dani: Batik - Platform is good, Train may need to update, perhaps updating one bundle only would suffice. John will follow up.
  • Alex: SWT for GTK 3 News
    • GTK port finally decoupled from X11 - it renders on Wayland now, can switch the renderer to a pure HTML one
    • This opens up opportunities (but depends on hosts that have GTK).



April 1, 2015 - McQ, Alex, Martin, Dani (Regrets: John travelling)

  • Alex: GTK 3.16 seeing issues again - fixed some crashes, but scrolling is still entirely broken
    • SWT uses a number of things that GTK declares as "implementation detail"
  • PMC approval on piggyback CQ's (AC question forwarded by John)

March 18, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John

  • John: EclipseCon - Bigger this year due to LocationTech (750 attendees)
    • Mark Reinhold keynote and "after-session" on Java 9
    • Much interest in Orion JS tooling / editor, also on desktop
    • Public face of Eclipse Platform at the conference was much more diverse than in the past (Lars Vogel, Max Anderson, Google ...)
  • Dani: bug 458730 Mars Plan Update
  • Dani: e4 project leadership approved by EMO
  • Dani: Szymon Brandys resigned as Platform/Resources co-lead. Need to +1 on the mailing list

March 11, 2015 - no meeting (EclipseCon)


March 4, 2015 - Dani, McQ, Martin, John

  • Dani: e4 leadership - Dani will volunteer to co-lead
  • Dani: BREEs - documentation about how to pick the EE
    • Recommending the "earliest generally supported JRE that provides the capabilities you need"
    • Would like an URL on the page pointing to the most recent plan (talking to Wayne)
  • John: greatfix contest
    • Dani: Working well - some very small contributions but some also very large (eg Customize Perspective fixes)
  • John: EclipseCon - numbers looking good; join Planning Council Breakfast as delegate for Dani

February 25, 2015 - Dani, Martin McQ

  • No topics

February 18, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin

  • Alex: Building Native Launchers
    • Current way of building is kinda unpredictable - even if getting some agreement on versions to use, results are kinda unpredictable
    • Pushing towards Hudson RHEL builders at least at the EF to get more transparency and automation - attempt to mimic the infrastructure at IBM
    • Looking at 3 primary architectures (at the EF) for Linux vs. secondary architectures (non-public builders potentially)
  • Dani: Great initiative, but other (non-EF) builders must not be broken
    • EF doesn't allow any commercial tools (but currently, e.g. Windows launchers are built with MSVS)
  • Alex is willing to spend time to get Linux builds running; but can't help with other architectures
    • Martin: great approach - for Windows, using a cross-compiler on Linux might be interesting (after Linux native works)
  • Alex: This is just phase one - getting rid of the binaries in git repos might be phase 2 (since the checked-in binaries easily cause inconsistencies between Java and Native side)
    • Martin: Checked-in binaries help consumers and contributors who just want to make a Java change
    • Dani: Checked-in binaries are also used for comparing build results for expected vs accidental changes
  • Alex: bug 459399 - Policy for recommended minimum execution environments for bundles
    • Dani: It works today
      • To run Eclipse, Java 8 or Java 9 can be used (minimum BREE has no impact)
      • To modify the source, a new JRE can be used but then the Execution Environment Descriptions need to be installed
    • Policy as discussed in the past: Each project can increase the BREE if there is a real need (such as generifying) and no upstream clients are broken
      • But don't change the BREE without justification -- changing the BREE always has some effect, such as new warnings that would need to be addressed
      • Suggested BREE for new bundles has already been changed by Lars
  • Alex: Even for bundles in "maintenance mode", old BREE causes issues for people who build from source (who have to change compilers etc)
  • No conclusion so far (Alex and Dani disagree)
  • Dani: e4 leadership
    • Mature bits being moved to Eclipse - e4 remaining as an incubator to keep alive for experiments with low entry barrier

February 11, 2015 - Dani, Alex

  • no topics

February 4, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin


January 28, 2015 - Dani, Alex, John

  • Dani: Switch Mac OS X 10.9 with 10.10 in Mars target environments
    • No objections
  • Alex: Looking for any Eclipse related activity @Fosdem

January 21, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ

  • Alex: Process for allowing non-committers extended bugzilla privileges (for bug triage)?
    • Dani: Yes a process exists. Send bugzilla username to Dani.
  • Alex: New resource for helping with SWT
  • Dani: Platform/UI co-lead
  • Dani: Solaris: Java 8 will only support 64 bits on both Intel and SPARC --> IBM SWT Team considering to invest in getting patches in for 64-bit Solaris

January 14, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John

  • Dani: Update on Platform/UI Leadership: Daniel Rolka left IBM and for now has no time to contribute. He stepped down as co-lead and nominated Lars Vogel
  • Dani: Solaris x86 64-bit support - patches exist, but no machine available. No luck to get one from Oracle or via Eclipse Foundation. We will not support Solaris x86 64-bit unless someone makes a machine available

January 7, 2015 - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John

  • Dani: Platform/UI Leadership
  • John: Git security issue - pick up a patch for Jgit in the packages before SR2? - Mostly an EPP

Archive

Back to the top