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"

(351 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 =
−
'''Jun 2, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, McQ, John, McQ
+
 
−
* Dani - '''ECF Issues''': Why does Eclipse have a process with Approvals while ECF does not. At the moment, there is a mutual dependency.
+
'''September 30, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani
−
** Once we decided to consume them, we have no control over their rules.
+
* Dani: will send a note to PMC list asking to approve new Debug leadership (Sarika)
−
** Our only option is not consuming late changes from them (and thus burn the community and them).
+
* Dani: we should finalize our API removal discussion from last week
−
** John - there are some cases where we could push back a bit more (without going to the limit of not consuming at all).
+
** agreed that APIs marked for removal have to be annotated with @noreference
−
** Problems have been due to the build (and not due to quality issues in their code). But this doesn't change the fact that '''ANY''' late binding change is work and risk and should thus be pushed back if possible.
+
** agreed that components should be allowed to remove API but they have to provide good reasons
−
** McQ would like to be more flexible accepting changes .. are we becoming too stiff? ie. do what we can to mitigate risk, but live with taking risk .. that's part of the Eclipse Way.
+
** agreed that we won't allow to delete APIs simply because they are deprecated
−
* John - '''Builds after RC4'''
+
** agreed that the PMC will decide case by case i.e. there will be no general rule
−
** Need PMC agreement. John going to discuss cross-project criteria.
+
** regarding version numbering we decided to also decide this case by case
−
** McQ doesn't want to tie our release to the winds of others (outside Eclipse) getting back to us or not. '''We should not be asking cross-project for approval.'''
+
** Dani to update the removal document and have it reviewed by the PMC
−
** Each project is going to do what makes most sense to them (including us). In favor of having the conversation, but not asking for approval.
+
−
* John - '''When to start 3.7 and 3.6.1 builds''' - defer to next week.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''May 26, 2010:''' - Dani, McQ, Martin, Jeff, John
+
 
−
* Brief meeting. John just mentions that there's surprisingly many "Critical" bugs. Maybe just a triage problem. Will bring up in Arch call.
+
'''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)
 +
 
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''May 19, 2010:''' - Dani, McQ, Martin, Jeff, John
+
'''September 16, 2015''' - John, Martin
−
* John - {{bug|27930}} '''Naming of Eclipse Classic'''
+
* John: '''API Removal Discussion'''
−
** McQ - No other package on that page is the output of a single project, would want to see Eclipse SDK removed from packages page
+
** No urgency now -- changes have been reverted for now, and scheduled for 2017
−
** Jeff - "RCP/Plugin Developer" used to be direct replacements (SDK + Mylyn + XML Editor), but now also includes RAP (217MB)
+
** Updating the major of a bundle knowingly breaks everyone/most adopters
−
** Dani - Some people go to downloads/ and then look for a milestone
+
*** In the past, breaking changes have often been small enough to work without increasing the major
−
** "Development Builds" tab provides access to milestones of packages; "Projects" tab provides access to direct project output.
+
*** One can argue that removing TableTreeViewer is big enough to warrant updating the major
−
** '''Resolution:''' 650.000 people have downloaded classic (#2 download), even scrolling down - changing this is a waste.
+
** Versioning packages has not been done in the past due to the huge upcoming maintenance effort when starting to do so
−
* Dani - {{bug|313524}} '''Preference for new API Constant''' for the Formatter (also [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=59891#c45 bug 59891 comment 45] and onwards)
+
** "Release Version" is decoupled from "bundle versions" already (and may move to date-based versions eg "2016.1" with rolling updates moving forward
−
** Some people don't like the new look (method wrapping) - currently no way to have the formatter behave the same in 3.5 and 3.6
+
** --&gt; will have more discussion next week
−
** '''Resolution:''' pmc+ since little effort avoids lot of churn. Keeping the functionality without allowing to disable is a no-go.
+
−
* Martin - '''Feedback channel for removing API''' process (e.g. {{bug|311931}})
+
−
** '''Resolution:''' Add a suggestion to the [[Eclipse/API Central/API Removal Process]] page to start fresh for the feedback channel if there's a lot of discussion on the existing bug (by bugzilla clone)
+
−
* John - '''4.0 topics'''
+
−
** FYI: Ian created a draft of a [http://www.eclipse.org/helios/eclipse-sdk-4.0/ landing page]. Working on a [http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse/Eclipse_SDK_4.0_FAQ release FAQ] page
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''May 12, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, John, Jeff, Dani
+
'''September 9, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John, McQ
−
* Remaining work for Release - John: Checklist (Docs, collective N&N etc... IP Logs end May)
+
* John: '''Planning Council Updates'''
−
** [[Eclipse/Release checklist]], and [[Eclipse Doc Checklist]]. '''AI Dani''' has another one for Docs - will update for 3.6 and send offline
+
** 4 planned releases (March, June, September, December -- essentially end of each quarter) with flexible contents
−
** [[Platform-releng-faq#Eclipse_Release_checklist]] also links to [[3.3 Release checklist]]
+
** Mid December rather than end to avoid churn, so this one is a little shorter
−
* IP Logs for subprojects - '''AI Jeff''' talk to Wayne to allow IP logs for container projects, also ask Boris (committer rep) - unsure if we have a committer rep on the IP Advisory committee, but we should have
+
** Only June is "major" - allowing to drop off, or breaking changes; others are "minor"  
−
* Eclipse SDK 4.0 Naming
+
** 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
−
** John - from Mailing List discussion, "Eclipse SDK 4.0 Early Adopter Release" seemed to be the favorite one
+
 
−
** Next year's release will be 4.1. Ian going to prepare a landing page to send the right message, working with Boris and John
+
* Software is getting more important - would be good to better support multicore
−
* API Deletion - luceneSearchParticipant
+
 
−
** Deprecation should include a migration path (if it exists).
+
* John: '''IntelliJ change in licensing / sales model'''
−
** Will document deletions in the migration guide (and probably also in the README)
+
** Many eclipse-positive comments on the announcement blog
−
** Martin: Add a Bugzilla Keyword for API Deletions, will make it very easy to create a query for all pending API deletions
+
** Possibility putting Money on Eclipse Development may become interesting for companies in this context
−
** Jeff: Whatever we do, current deletions should be examplary.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''May 5, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, John, Dani
+
'''September 2, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John
−
* Martin - {{bug|309059}} root cert validity? - Tom investigating, no new info
+
* Dani: '''EclipseDay India''' on Saturday, 200 attendees wanted to join, hat to cut to 150
−
* Martin - How to mark issues for [[Polish3.6]] (UNC issues, Launcher vmargs {{bug|149994}}) - who sets the Bugzilla polish kwd?
+
** Keynote by Mike Milinkovich - large Community
−
** Martin to bring up again, and add to the Polish Wiki, and add the polish keyword on bz.
+
 
−
** Any Eclipse Platform committer is allowed to suggest items that bug him personally on the polish list (against any component).
+
* Dani: '''Policy for and Mars.2'''
−
* John - Helios Plan update
+
** Do we want to stick to the "Service" model or allow feature updates ?
−
* John - API Removal
+
** 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/>
−
'''Apr 28, 2010:''' - Jeff, Martin, John, McQ, Dani
+
'''August 19, 2015''' - Alex, Dani
−
* Martin - '''[[Eclipse/UNC_Paths]]''' - testing for 3.6 ? Bugzilla: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwords&short_desc=unc&classification=Eclipse&classification=RT&product=Equinox&product=Platform&product=JDT&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&product=PDE All open with UNC in the summary]
+
* nothing to discuss
−
** Especially {{bug|289322}} and {{bug|262601}} are blocking for Martin, because these make it impossible to have Eclipse installed on an UNC path (common scenario in large organizations)
+
−
** Consensus: ''No concerted effort'', there are likely other more pressing issues; but ''investigate and prioritize what we find, and fix if possible''.
+
−
** <b><i>Running on UNC is considered a Polish item</i></b>.
+
−
* Jeff, McQ - '''Eclipse 4.0 Naming'''
+
−
** Suggestion: "Eclipse 4.0 Indigo Preview"
+
−
** McQ: Don't want to send a negative message - it ''is'' usable though add-on support may be missing
+
−
** John: This is a new release of the Platform, but not all of Eclipse Foundation technology... unsure how to phrase that into a release name
+
−
** Jeff: Based on this, putting Indigo into the name is a negative and may trigger false assumptions
+
−
** McQ: ''Eclipse SDK 4.0 Developer Release'' - sends the right message
+
−
** Jeff: '''Come up with 3 or 4 suggestions and bounce these around'''. Start a public discussion. Check with other OSS projects, e.g. Andrew Overholt
+
−
* McQ - '''1.5 BREE for Resources to support Unicode Characters'''
+
−
** Suggest everything on top of the base RCP move up to 1.5
+
−
** Jeff: "Move when you need to and not before" - when do we "need to"
+
−
* John - '''[[Eclipse/API Central/API Removal Process]]
+
−
** Just a compilation of things discussed before. '''Discuss on the Mailing List'''
+
−
* McQ - '''Pascal as the OBR spec lead'''
+
−
** From point of view of the Eclipse Project, can't imagine what value we'd get from participating in OBR spec. IBM might care.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Apr 21, 2010:''' - Jeff, Martin, John, Dani, McQ
+
'''August 12, 2015''' - John, Dani
−
* John - extended '''2 day test pass''' for M7 on Mon and Tue
+
* John asked whether we run on Windows 10
−
* Jeff - '''Eclipse 4.0 naming'''
+
** 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)
−
** McQ hopes that Eclipse 4.0 will be good enough for public consumption - whatever we call it, it needs to be what we call it
+
** ''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".''
−
** Jeff - the message should be that it's (a) new, (b) cool, (c) not quite done yet
+
* Dani would like to get plan feedback by Friday EOD
−
** McQ - 4.0 won't be as performant as 3.x. Users will see the new cool presentation, but other than that it's like 3.6
+
−
** Biggest problem will be people who don't follow the Community and just get 4.0 because they heard about it
+
−
** Jeff - Comes down to setting expectations. Naming is one aspect of this, there's other aspects.
+
−
** John - Ian organized an e4-evangelist call.
+
−
** McQ - Most people will just consume the release train (Helios) anyways, and will notice that 4.0 is "different".
+
−
* Martin - {{bug|306822}} '''IncrementalBuilder.getRule()''' API addition: Ask James whether CDT Helios can pick up the change
+
−
* Martin - '''James for committer''' - move to public policy of only considering committed contributions
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Apr 14, 2010:''' - John, Dani, Martin, Jeff
+
'''August 5, 2015''' - McQ, John, Dani, Alex, Martin
−
* Martin - '''Startup Performance tests''': Cold start after reboot is 20% slower in 3.6m6 compared to 3.5.2 (while warm start is about the same)
+
* PC meeting later today (planning calendar, calling SR1/2 "Update 1/2" instead
−
** Manual test: Reboot a minimal WinXP system, then start into a fresh workspace with 1 JDT project (20 files) 1 open file in the editor.
+
** adding another release before Christmas might be a next step - even if Platform contributes identical bits
−
** 28 sec in 3.5.2 but 36 sec in 3.6m6. Will file a bug tomorrow.
+
 
−
** John: There are 2 startup performance tests in the suite, but they are unreliable. In 3.6, changed the way tests are installed (director rather than dropins), thus baseline is not helpful.
+
* Dani: '''[[Eclipse/Mars Retrospective]]'''
−
** Jeff: Try have a look at {{Bug|308157}} Jarfile cache now limited to 100. Reason might just be cycling through more Jar's.
+
** Move more components to Tycho build? (Would still need Ant to test against final build/bits)
−
* John, Dani - '''Polish List'''
+
** Contribution Review Dates: joined by some components but not all
−
* John - '''e4 plan update'''. Waiting on McQ, wants an accurate list on what's graduating.
+
** Error Reporter: Interesting to look at top ten but the sheer number is too big
−
** Jeff - once something is in 4.0 you cannot remove in 4.x so better think twice before graduating.
+
*** John - based on Orion experience with similar error reporting :
−
** John - Eclipse SDK 4.0 has a minimal API exposed, most new stuff is under the covers so this is not so much of an issue.
+
**** Looking at changes in reported issues is more interesting than looking at reports themselves
−
** Jeff - More important to have Eclipse SDK 4.0 rock solid than have it feature complete. Do few things well rather than many things poorly.
+
**** 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)
−
** John - '''Self-hosting a day on Eclipse 4.0 without blocking issues!''' (But much to be polished, bugs, errors in the log etc).
+
 
−
* Jeff - '''Runtime SDK's vs "targets"''': The label SDK is ambiguous. Want to install tooling + target platform together, but cannot do that today.
+
* Dani: Foundation IP team doesn't require updating copyright notices per contribution any more (since that information is in git anyways)
−
** Today, we use "SDK" for (a) tools+source+docs, or (b) runtime+source+docs. None of both is really an SDK.
+
** The Project has to agree
−
** Better call the target stuff just "targets".
+
** 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
−
** Developer docs as part of the tooling is wrong ... should be associated with targets instead.
+
** Won't remove existing lists (they never claimed to be complete, since there always was the "...and others" copyright notice
−
** John: p2 does have the ability to install into multiple profiles (plan = multiple profiles)... might be (mis)used for this, is it a hack?
+
** Dani to sent [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02422.html request for voting]
−
** Jeff: Much target provisioning was deferred off 3.6
+
 
 +
* 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 7, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Jeff, John
+
'''July 15, 22 and 29, 2015''' -- no meeting
−
* Builds - short call
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Mar 31, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, John
+
'''July 8, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, John, Martin, Alex
−
* Martin - '''EclipseCon Report'''
+
* John: '''Cross-Language Tooling Discussion''' on the eclipse.org-architecture-council and ide-dev mailing lists
−
** General industry trend pointing up (as perceived on the exhibition floor); e4 rover great success! other strong topics included build (b3, buckminster, maven / tycho / nexus, athena...)
+
* decided to cancel the upcoming July meetings
−
** e4 message in general very well positioned and received; git / egit was another hot topic
+
−
** Modeling and RT projects in an up trend, other projects seem to go slightly down in terms of Community interest as well as commercial involvement
+
−
** API Tutorial very well received, Martin going to work on a "Wiki" version of checklists and guidance, will notify AC when done
+
−
* John - Eclipse 4.0: Timing for graduating e4 incubation material into the Eclipse proper
+
−
** We cannot ship an Eclipse SDK out of the e4 project
+
−
** Want a clear message what Eclipse 4.0 is... probably "includes incubating components" like some EPP packages
+
−
** '''AI John''' talk to Mike and Ian
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Mar 17, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin
+
'''July 1, 2015''' -- no meeting
−
* McQ: '''git''' vs CVS: Should there be contributions by Platform on Egit?
+
−
** Martin: Don't know how well egit proceeded recently, Boris might know more... important point is that the major workflows are perfect. Looks like the major workflows have been identified already.
+
−
* Martin: '''WebkitGTK / MiniBrowser''': In addition to the recent WebkitGTK discussion, perhaps work on a "Minibrowser" API that can live with published frozen Mozilla API only? Many apps may not need the full feature-richness of today's Browser.
+
−
** McQ unsure whether this is worthwile, since all industry trends go towards more web integration. '''AI Martin''' follow up with Grant
+
−
* Dani: '''Performance and Polish''' passes
+
−
** All teams need to fix the issues that Frederic finds. M7 is the performance and polish pass. Prioritize items.
+
−
* Dani: '''Freeze Plan'''
+
−
** Suggest a 2-day test pass (mon/tue) before the RC's, ie move 1 day from RC2 into M7
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Mar 10, 2010:''' - McQ, Jeff, Martin, John
+
'''June 24, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Alex
−
* John: '''Provisional API guidelines''' (removing the requirement to have "internal" in the package name) - important for e4 which will have a lot of provisional API.
+
* 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
−
** See also {{bug|261874}} and Wiki [[Provisional API Guidelines Update Proposal]]
+
** No JARs any more - JRE is doing things internally using "jimage" format; updated search etc to create projects and work against them
−
** "Old School" wanted to make provisional API deliberately painful. Migrating "provisional" to real without renaming will make breakage more subtle
+
** If the Jimage filesystem provider isn't backported, one has to run the IDE on Java9 in order to code Java9
−
** The game has changed: Adding x-internal, friends and API Tooling works much better than before, making it clear where API is provisional
+
** 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)
−
** Martin: Much in favor of this, do we have any markup beyond x-internal for (a) making provisional API more explicitly visible or (b) work on a smaller granularity such as just a class?
+
−
*** McQ: granularity smaller than package makes it too easy to pollute API
+
−
*** Jeff: would like x-api-status:=provisional markup instead of x-internal:=true ... better do it right than half-baken. Could probably come to a fairly fast consensus on MANIFEST markup
+
−
** Resolution Lets agree now that x-internal is sufficient for provisional API, and discuss further approvements in parallel. '''AI John''' to search existing bugs about provisional API markup and initiate a discussion on the eclipse-pmc mailing list.
+
−
* Jeff: '''Target Provisioning and PDE:''' Target components in Galileo (which cannot be installed into the host) - came up with sort of a hack which still confuses users
+
−
** Want just a little bit help in PDE to make target provisioning just a little bit better .. a number of PDE bugs related to this, many been deferred .. there will be new bugs coming to capture what can be done in the short term
+
−
** Resolution: will mark up those new bugs where they request PMC involvement
+
−
* McQ: '''Build Quality:''' There is traditionally a drop in quality around this time of year (API Freeze and Eclipsecon), plus infrastructure problems. It's not really bad but we need to be careful now.
+
−
** John: Resist the urge to put in extra fixes. We are past the test pass. Quality over function, especially now.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Mar 3, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ
+
'''June 17, 2015''' - Dani, John, Martin, Alex
−
* Martin: Remove org.eclipse.update.configurator and related bundles from SDK? As per {{bug|304505}} it makes Eclipse slow even when off.
+
* John: '''Mars''' Platform in good shape for Mars - EPP respin for Error Reporting
−
** Dani: Might be more than a packaging issue, somebody would have to invest
+
* Dani: '''Crashes with Java 8''' - Potentially will add to the online README
−
** McQ: Should fix the Performance issue at any rate, regardless of other issues.
+
** Happens in the JIT, with latest Oracle Java 8 (with 8 Cores and very specific circumstances)
−
* John sick, Dani vacation next week.
+
** See {{Bug|465693}} - Probably https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078262
 +
* Alex: '''XDG Application''' - looks like Docker but a similar idea
 +
** Environment description of the runtime - helps specifying the line-up of library versions that we test against and use
 +
** Big part of GNOME / GTK already pushing for it, might make sense to consider alignment
 +
** GNOME working towards compiling with a really old compiler, such that the physically identical bits can run against a large set of distros
 +
** See https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps
 +
** But if you want to try it out please read https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2015/06/17/testing-rawhide-apps-using-xdg-app/
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Feb 24, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ
+
 
−
* Dani: Remove Java 7 support as a plan item due to (a) legal reasons and (b) Java 7 not being finished when Eclipse 3.6 ships
+
'''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/>
−
'''Feb 17, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, John
+
'''June 3, 2015''' - Alex, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
−
* Martin: {{bug|196337}} Pushing CDT Spawner into the Platform?
+
* Dani: '''Mars Endgame'''
−
** John, Dani: Platform could only accept it when there is use for it in the SDK. Otherwise it would just bloat the Platform
+
* Dani: Please vote for release review
−
** Recommended best practice: Keep Spawner living in CDT, but put it into a separate bundle such that it can be used by others out of Helios or other p2 Repos
+
−
** The [[Nexus Project]], which was once meant to collect such micro functionality to be shared between projects was never successful. Similar requests (e.g. faceted projects) are consumed as individual bundles through p2 today, no matter in which project they have their home where they are developed.
+
−
* Martin: {{bug|301563}} Fast project import from snapshot data - UI or not?
+
−
** John: Want some UI in the Platform in order to test it more easily, e.g. an export wizard
+
−
* John: Webkit
+
−
** Foundation is considering allowing LGPL for exempt prereqs, but not for works-with .. missing a policy for dealing with LGPL works-with
+
−
** John: Our original reason for marking works-with is that the SWT browser can use either Mozilla or WebKit. However our long term direction is WebKit-only due to brittleness of the Mozilla API which keeps breaking us. There is an increasing number of distros bundling these WebKit libraries so there is a reasonable chance going forward that the library will already be present on the user's machine.
+
−
** Martin: Exempt works-with (optional) prereq is perfectly fine for Webkit, since there is a chance it's already there on a Platform (similar to Mozilla)
+
−
** Classifying it as such makes most sense for Product builders, who look at the prereqs to understand what they need to bundle with their Eclipse based product.
+
−
** PMC agreed to reclassify these libraries as exempt pre-req.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Feb 10, 2010:''' - John, Dani, McQ
+
'''May 20, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ
−
* We agreed to list WebKitGTK and libsoup 2.4 as works-with prerequisites
+
* Dani: '''Security Update''' - Platform work done, Orbit updated, reached out to Wayne and other affected projects.
−
* We need to find consensus on {{bug|243582}} (embedding source info in binaries)
+
* Dani: '''RC2 Build''' - too many bugs assigned, Lars on Vacation, Dani will fill in
−
* Discussed moving Ubuntu version on the plan from 9.04 to 10.04. It is too early to make this decision because release candidates of 10.04 are not yet available, but we will continue to monitor it and make the decision to move up (or not) later in the 3.6 cycle
+
* 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/>
−
'''Feb 03, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin
+
'''May 13, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Martin
−
* Dani: {{Bug|301563}} - Fast project import from snapshot data
+
* John, Dani - Mars Endgame looking good
−
** Has the feature been verified to really return the expected performance gain? - Martin: Yes, Cisco reports 10 minute -> 5 seconds improvement by using the feature on project import on their view (65000 files)
+
* Alex - {{bug|465874}} Lucene 5 looking good, almost done - Ready to commit as soon as CQs are in and Mars+1 is open
−
** Is the feature valuable without Index contributions from JDT / CDT? - Martin: Yes, even "plain" projects benefit when there are linked resources pointing to web folders through RSE/EFS since they can be browsed immediately and refresh can be reduced to what's really needed. But most benefit is gained when there is also a shared index to be imported for immediate use.
+
* JDT for Java 9 - will need a wider discussion with EMO on make it easier to publish the work, e.g. in normal builds
−
** Dani proposed checkin into a branch for easier merge / review - Martin: Will start working with patches
+
−
** AI Martin: Contact Sharon regarding IP review (reserve a slot)
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jan 27, 2010:''' - John, Dani, McQ, Martin
+
'''May 6, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, John
−
* Dani: Markus Keller taking over JDT UI
+
* Dani: '''Java 9 timing''' - slight delay
−
* John: M6 Splashscreen for Eclipsecon: {{bug|297355}}
+
* Dani: RC1 preps
−
* McQ: Removing Builds - SWT needs Linux-Motif, so only WPF about to be removed
+
** 2-day test pass went fine - 2 severe issues found, will be addressed
−
** In discussions with Microsoft, it turned out that WPF is not required to get full Windows 7 experience under Win32
+
** Request to watch PMC mailing list for API exceptions and defect approvals
−
** XAML for styling was meant to be a cool idea but never got flying
+
* John: '''PC Discussion on Release Cycles'''
−
** Socialize people with this -- find whether people are inerested in contributing on this, if yes then we should support them
+
** Multiple releases per year PLUS maintenance streams seems like overkill
−
* Still working the IBM approval process for travelling to Eclipsecon
+
** Consider an approach like Orion that just moves constantly forward
−
* Avoid merging major feature work after a milestone's Tuesday test pass
+
** 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'''
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jan 20, 2010:''' - John, Dani, McQ, Martin
+
'''April 8, 2015''' - Dani, Martin, Alex, John, McQ
−
* McQ: Contacted Steve N, still interested but unlikely to get more energy for investing into Eclipse
+
* Dani: '''Batik''' - Platform is good, Train may need to update, perhaps updating one bundle only would suffice. John will follow up.
−
* John: 3.5.2 test pass tomorrow, but yesterday's I-build been a mess
+
* Alex: '''SWT for GTK 3 News'''
−
* McQ: Message about supporting Open JDK in a blog ... status should be "nice that it works but it's not a reference platform"
+
** 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).
  
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''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)
 +
** Dani sent [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02332.html our position] to John in order to update the AC
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''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
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
 +
'''March 11, 2015 - no meeting (EclipseCon)'''
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
 +
'''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
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''February 25, 2015''' - Dani, Martin McQ
 +
* No topics
 +
 +
<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/>
 +
'''February 11, 2015''' - Dani, Alex
 +
* no topics
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
 +
'''February 4, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
 +
* Alex: With GTK-3.15.[345] , Eclipse is entirely unusable
 +
** Alex has some dirty workarounds to make it start, but still many issues like trees not painted, ...
 +
** 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
 +
* Dani: Working on Solaris 64-bit
 +
 +
<hr/>
 +
 +
'''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
 +
<hr/>
 +
 +
'''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/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jan 13, 2010:''' - John, Dani, McQ, Martin
 
−
* McQ: U Manitoba students to help with technical communication (documentation, website, ...) for e4
 
−
* Dani: New way of contributing Capabilities for Helios... are we OK? - John: yes, Platform Capabilities are in the SDK feature
 
−
** FYI: Incubating projects are
 
−
* Martin: Documenting the Platforms we routinely test on
 
−
** Unittest / Perftest machines are know. When John updated the Reference Platform doc, he made sure that he knows at least one committer on each platform
 
−
** A poll to know what Platform(s) are actively used (by committers) on milestone granularity would be very helpful - John going to set that up
 
  
 +
'''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/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jan 6, 2010:''' - John, Dani, McQ, Jeff
 
−
* Agreed on 3.5.2 [http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/plans/freeze_plan_3_5_2.php freeze plan]
 
−
** Note RC2 is a week earlier to avoid colliding with Helios M5 week
 
−
* Discussed Helios plan updates 2 {{bug|298200}}
 
−
** Update Java 7 plan item to indicate only working on publicly available bits. Some progress made on getting access to specs but going slowly.
 
−
** Update reference JRE's to latest version of each JRE
 
−
* Jeff will be away for next six weeks (vacation)
 
−
* McQ to contact Steve to see if he still wishes to remain on PMC
 
  
 
= Archive =
 
= 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]]
 
* [[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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=Eclipse/PMC&oldid=391903"

Back to the top