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"

(318 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
= 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 =
−
'''Dec 1, 2010:''' - John, Jeff, Dani, Martin, McQ
 
−
* McQ - '''Jeff Commit Rights on PDE'''
 
−
* Dani - '''No EMO approval needed for component leads'''
 
−
** Jeff: EMO doesn't know about components... if it's a project it needs a lead. Better do inform EMO about changes.
 
−
** Portal not yet updated to reflect group id changes.
 
  
−
<hr/>
+
'''September 30, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani
−
'''Nov 24, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, John, Martin, Jeff
+
* Dani: will send a note to PMC list asking to approve new Debug leadership (Sarika)
−
* Dani - '''New PDE Leadership''' - nominated on PDE list, should formally accept nomination
+
* Dani: we should finalize our API removal discussion from last week
−
* Dani - '''Martin not listed as PMC member in Portal''' - AI Martin send message to EMO
+
** agreed that APIs marked for removal have to be annotated with @noreference
−
* John - {{bug|330534}} '''JDT vs OT/J discussion''' - Agreement that the proposed solution makes sense for now
+
** agreed that components should be allowed to remove API but they have to provide good reasons
−
* Martin - {{bug|330310}} '''Feature Removal''' (Help Capability Filter)
+
** agreed that we won't allow to delete APIs simply because they are deprecated
−
** We don't have an official policy regarding feature removal
+
** agreed that the PMC will decide case by case i.e. there will be no general rule
−
** John: Features are much more subjective than API
+
** regarding version numbering we decided to also decide this case by case
−
** Martin thinks that even though subjective - when something is deliberately removed the Community should be informed
+
** Dani to update the removal document and have it reviewed by the PMC
−
** McQ: Talking is good - but in the end those who do the work should not be hindered too much on innovation
+
−
** John - a minimal step when removing something should include filing a bug as a place for discussion
+
−
** Common Sense might be good enough (no need for an official policy)
+
−
* John - {{bug|324772}} Group membership updates - Recommend moving Ufacekit to e4, portal being updated
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Nov 17, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, John, Martin
 
−
* Dani: '''Java 7''' - how to enable new features without breaking adopters
 
−
* Martin: '''PMC membership''' - Martin to contact EMO, McQ to contact Steve N
 
−
* McQ: {{bug|330312}} '''Object Teams JDT Fork'''
 
−
** Aspects can also change other's code and this can't be prohibited; but using others' namespace makes the fork indistinguishable from the original
 
−
** Even without the end user problem, people create their dependencies with some slack so there is risk getting the wrong version
 
−
** On the Tools PMC, namespace re-use was also discouraged
 
−
** Bug is owned by AC, Martin thinks we can close the bug as "no namespace re-use on the release train. ever."
 
−
** But we do want to help adopters get what they need, ie discuss alternative ideas.
 
−
* John: {{bug|329191}} '''EMF Dependency in SDK 4.1'''
 
−
** Turned out that not only 4.1 but also a couple other +1 projects depend on EMF ... Ed Merks suggests making EMF Core a +0 project
 
−
* John: '''Build Quality of Service'''
 
−
** Foundation horsepower seems to be OK. David W suggests starting to measure build capacity.
 
−
** Measures to limit build access/times have been discussed, but no plans to implement any at the moment.
 
−
* McQ: '''Target Operating Environments'''
 
−
** All 3.7 on GTK - good; Ubuntu switching to new non-remote X server; GTK3 has been resurrected .. could have an impact if it picks up speed, might destabilize linux
 
−
* Martin: '''Pawel approved''' to assume Platform/Debug leadership, official nomination process ongoing on component list
 
  
−
<hr/>
+
'''September 23, 2015''' - Dani, John, Alex, Martin
−
'''Nov 10, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, McQ, John
+
* Dani: '''JDT Core''' - Co-lead going to step up
−
* McQ: '''Platform/Debug Leadership''' - to mention at the Arch call
+
* Dani: '''API Removal Discussion'''
−
* John: '''UNIX Groups''' - progressing well. Want to match reality.
+
** 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.
  
−
<hr/>
+
** Q2: '''How to deal with the versions?'''
−
'''Nov 3, 2010:''' - Jeff, McQ, Martin, Dani, John
+
*** Dani: Updating the major causes major pain on everyone (adoption work), so this should be avoided
−
* {{bug|329191}} - Eclipse 4.x, EMF and version ranges
+
**** Actively developed plugins will notice source breakage when recompiling anyways -- no need to update the major for them.
−
** Have been talking about line-ups with p2 for years: Platform "product" as a line-up of pieces
+
**** 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 ?
−
* John: '''Commit Rights''' and group cleanup
+
**** Plugins who don't care recompiling may have to live with ClassNotFoundException
−
** How to inform affected committers?
+
**** Tooling exists: API Use Scan Tools can discover incorrect API references that are not announced by the versions
−
** We cannot have commit rights just disappear without making all reasonable efforts contacting them (use Foundation DB to get E-Mail addresses)
+
*** '''Summary:''' Handle the Major with care -- in most cases, the cost of updating the major is not justified by the benefit.
  
−
<hr/>
+
** John: '''Announcement''' When thinking about removing something, we should announce that far and wide and ask for feedback
−
'''Oct 27, 2010:''' - Jeff, McQ, Dani, Martin, John
+
*** Martin: But which channel is as effective as actually removing it ? There's always who don't actually listen...
−
* Jeff: '''Security Issue with Jetty in IDE Help''' - returning JSP source code rather than content in some cases (very hard to reproduce)
+
*** John: Still, giving a possibility to listen is important. Agree that mentioning in the release docs is not enough.
−
* '''Build Times and Eclipse QoS for Builds''' - build times vary between 1 and 4 hours
+
*** Dani: When making a release, also send message with a link to the removals page (for all removals that are planned)
−
** Mike M: Does the team have any idea for how to re-implement the build? - Stick with PDE Build + Hudson for now
+
** John: Mechanisms for maintaining binary compatibility while only breaking source compatibility (but it's a lot of work!)
−
** Jeff: Tycho/Maven might be viable if Sonatype showed up to help - Buckminster is more about orchestration than build
+
*** Dani: Agree, in this case better just leave it in there
−
** Martin: What's the motivation for asking a change? - Long term support strategy...
+
  
 +
** 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/>
 
−
'''Oct 20, 2010:''' - Jeff, McQ, Dani
 
−
* Eclipse foundation needs to help us get access to JSRs for Java 7
 
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Oct 13, 2010:''' - John, Jeff, Martin, McQ, Dani
+
'''September 16, 2015''' - John, Martin
−
* Martin: '''Hard to get a complete list of all applicable license texts''' - neither IP log helps here, nor mining all the about.html's (hard to find duplicates)
+
* John: '''API Removal Discussion'''
−
** Jeff: Wayne is writing a tool to validate IP logs - might be related
+
** No urgency now -- changes have been reverted for now, and scheduled for 2017
−
** Jeff: Some work in p2 to collect / characterize license data, but only for feature license (umbrella thing). p2 metadata allows having multiple licenses, but that's not currently
+
** Updating the major of a bundle knowingly breaks everyone/most adopters
−
** Conclusion: License info is not in a machine-readable form today. If this turns out being a problem for consumers, we may want to improve the situation.
+
*** In the past, breaking changes have often been small enough to work without increasing the major
−
* Martin: '''Obsolete 3rd party libs in the IP Log'''
+
*** One can argue that removing TableTreeViewer is big enough to warrant updating the major
−
** When removing IP, add the "obsolete" keyword on ipzilla. How to deal with this while handling multiple Streams ?
+
** Versioning packages has not been done in the past due to the huge upcoming maintenance effort when starting to do so
−
** Hard to associate any IP Log entry with actual license / code. Would be interesting to be able and link any Ipzilla against actual about.html online in viewcvs/viewsvn etc
+
** "Release Version" is decoupled from "bundle versions" already (and may move to date-based versions eg "2016.1" with rolling updates moving forward
−
** '''AI Martin''' open an IP Discussion for this
+
** --&gt; will have more discussion next week
−
* John: '''Remove "early adopter" from the 4.1 builds'''
+
−
** McQ is in favor, no disagreement - '''AI John/Paul''' make the change
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Oct 6, 2010:''' - Dani, John, Jeff, Martin
+
'''September 9, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John, McQ
−
* Feature ranges
+
* John: '''Planning Council Updates'''
−
** Some projects using a buckminster capability to convert feature includes to wider ranges
+
** 4 planned releases (March, June, September, December -- essentially end of each quarter) with flexible contents
−
** This makes it hard to reproduce builds and installs
+
** Mid December rather than end to avoid churn, so this one is a little shorter
−
** No longer able to install SR0 once SR1 is available
+
** Only June is "major" - allowing to drop off, or breaking changes; others are "minor"
−
* Web pages
+
** 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
−
** Jeff working with Kim and DJ to improve appearance of download pages, introduce Nova theme
+
 
 +
* 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/>
−
'''Sep 29, 2010:''' - Dani, John, Martin, Jeff
+
'''September 2, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John
−
* John: UNIX groups - ongoing, now with Webmaster
+
* Dani: '''EclipseDay India''' on Saturday, 200 attendees wanted to join, hat to cut to 150
−
* John: Parts of e4 project now moving to git - may pave the way for more git on Eclipse later on
+
** Keynote by Mike Milinkovich - large Community
−
** PDE Build Fetch factory for git currently exists as a patch on a bug, should live in egit - {{bug|289838}}
+
 
−
* Jeff: Download page - Cluttered and hard to navigate - {{bug|326444}} for Equinox: too many columns, too much text
+
* Dani: '''Policy for and Mars.2'''
−
** Make it easier to find "the latest"; update the look to be more consistent with main web pages
+
** Do we want to stick to the "Service" model or allow feature updates ?
−
** Most people just get the SDK, or the SWT downloads
+
** Mars.1 winding down -- sticking to "Critical Fixes Only" for that
−
** '''AI''' File bug for discussion
+
** 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/>
−
'''Sep 22, 2010:''' - Dani, Jeff, Martin, John
+
'''August 19, 2015''' - Alex, Dani
−
* John: 3.7 -> 4.1 EPP upgrade - idea is to just upgrade the Platform (not a long-term, but interim idea)
+
* nothing to discuss
−
** Goal is increasing the usage of 4.1, without further producing full EPP's
+
−
* Dani: How to move forward with UNIX group restructuring
+
−
** Wait for the build.e.o problems to get resolved, then John to follow up with Denis (via the discussion bug), once there is a concrete suggestion of what is desired in terms of ACL's
+
−
* John: M2a rebuild - anything we can do to reduce the chance of getting such bugs in the future?
+
−
** No-Reference analysis warnings were turned off in the past since there were too many false positives
+
−
** Dani - Bytecode are independent of warnings, there's really 2 issues:
+
−
*** (a) compiler only changed every 6 weeks, earlier compiler adoption would have found this earlier
+
−
*** (b) bytecode comparison after builds ?
+
−
*** John: using the new p2 every week turned out to be too volatile (but compiler may be more stable)
+
−
**** Goal of updating basebuilder more often would be adding "compile Eclipse" as a big testcase for the compiler
+
−
** '''AI John''' to discuss with Kim
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Sep 15, 2010:''' - Dani, Jeff, McQ, John
+
'''August 12, 2015''' - John, Dani
−
* Moving up to ICU4J 4.6 which requires Java 5
+
* John asked whether we run on Windows 10
−
** We are stuck on old version of ICU4J unless we can move to Java 5
+
** 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)
−
** We previously agreed moving to Java 5 is ok - no complaints here
+
** ''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".''
−
** Need to document the steps for someone running RCP on Foundation 1.1 - have to switch to older version of ICU4J
+
* Dani would like to get plan feedback by Friday EOD
−
** This will enable us to consume future ICU4J versions that may be able to split large timezone data into a separately consumable piece.
+
−
* Unix groups
+
−
** Preference is to avoid multiple votes
+
−
** Try to use ACLs to enable multiple groups for some directories
+
−
** If this is too complex, then have two groups but not expose two votes. I.e., when a committer is approved, we need to tell webmasters to add "common" along with whatever component they are being added to.
+
−
* Release train and 3.7/4.1 split
+
−
** Planning council working out how to handle 3.7/4.1 split
+
−
** Some argued that having 4.1 EPP packages would greatly improve adoption
+
−
** Being able to "one click" upgrade from 3.7->4.1 EPP not too bad and greatly reduces dis/mirror footprint (for example a link in welcome page)
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 +
'''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
  
−
'''Sep 8, 2010:''' - John, Jeff, McQ
+
* Dani: '''[[Eclipse/Mars Retrospective]]'''
−
* Discussed reception of 4.0 release.
+
** Move more components to Tycho build? (Would still need Ant to test against final build/bits)
−
** We probably overdid the caution and it appears to be getting very little use
+
** Contribution Review Dates: joined by some components but not all
−
** Will encourage Eclipse project developers to use 4.1 builds to help find and iron out bugs
+
** Error Reporter: Interesting to look at top ten but the sheer number is too big
−
* Discussed [[Eclipse/PMC/Unix Groups]] again
+
*** John - based on Orion experience with similar error reporting :
−
** Need to resolve with webmasters how to handle "common" things. Entered {{bug|324772}} to iron out details with web master
+
**** Looking at changes in reported issues is more interesting than looking at reports themselves
−
* John asked for input on draft Indigo plan
+
**** 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)
−
* Discussed how to better handle ECF contributions
+
−
** Either ECF needs to be done earlier, or we have to live with our dates slipping
+
−
** Need to work together to see if we can improve contribution process
+
−
** We need to at least make sure they are in the loop on our build and end-game schedules
+
−
* Jeff mentioned target platform management in PDE has a few holes. Will have a follow-up call to dive into details with PDE committers.
+
  
 +
* 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]
  
−
<hr/>
+
* 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.
  
−
'''Sep 1, 2010:''' - John, Jeff, Dani
+
* Dani: Looking for a contributor for SWT improvements for GTK3
−
* Discussed [[Eclipse/PMC/Unix Groups]]
+
−
** Agreed with general direction about greatly reducing number of groups
+
−
** Dani proposed some changes to text and search components, which have since been incorporated into the doc
+
  
−
<hr/>
+
* 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
  
−
'''Aug 25, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin
+
* Alex: '''Build SWT at the Foundation'''
−
* Dani - 3.6.1 looks ok - no other topics
+
** Work with the Foundation going well, expect to have RHEL machines deployed at the foundation next month
  
−
<hr/>
 
−
'''Aug 18, 2010:''' - Dani, John, Martin
 
−
* John - '''Eclipse 3.x and 4.0''' and the Release Train
 
−
** Early feedback from 4.0 adopters is that most stuff actually works when dropping in binaries (talking binary compatibility, not source compatibility)
 
−
** Martin is concerned that dropping binaries built against 3.x into 4.0 will fail late at runtime only, due to use of internals
 
−
** John suggests API usage scan to understand issues early
 
−
** Martin is more interested in source compatibility (build against 4.0) - can this be made super simple?
 
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Aug 11, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, Dani
+
'''July 15, 22 and 29, 2015''' -- no meeting
−
* McQ - '''3.7 Planning Process''' - input requested from all committers about plan items
+
−
* '''Eclipse 4.0 Feedback''' - not too much seen, neither good nor bad
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Aug 4, 2010:''' - meeting cancelled
+
'''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/>
−
'''Jul 28, 2010:''' - McQ, John, Martin, Dani, Jeff
+
'''July 1, 2015''' -- no meeting
−
* Discussed process for handling security patches
+
−
** If patches had metadata that would allow them to be flagged as security or "critical" patches, then p2 could automatically apply them on startup
+
−
** Deluxe solution would use out of process installer to be able to repair corrupt install that can't even start
+
−
** Simple solution is to put patches in the eclipse/updates/3.6 repository and users need to apply them manually
+
−
* McQ gave a summary of the state of the Eclipse SDK 4.0 release (see his later [http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mcqjustmcq/2010/07/28/growing-the-future/ blog post]).
+
−
* Discussed possibility of facet work moving to e4
+
−
** Need to be clear on what would be required to migrate it to the platform
+
−
** Have separate call with Konstantin to discuss
+
−
* Discussed state of builds moving to Foundation infrastructure
+
−
** Could explore migrating build to different build technology such as Buckminster or Tycho if it provides any benefit
+
−
** Concern about the build/test machines becoming a bottleneck as more projects move to it
+
−
** Still need to run performance tests on IBM hardware for now because virtualized machine is not consistent enough
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jul 21, 2010:''' - McQ, John, Martin, Dani
+
'''June 24, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Alex
−
* McQ - '''State of Eclipse 4.0'''
+
* 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
−
** Not where we'd like us to be, but converging fast and there seem no issues blocking shipping
+
** No JARs any more - JRE is doing things internally using "jimage" format; updated search etc to create projects and work against them
−
** Not slowing down people any more, and get some new capabilities (view tear-off etc)
+
** If the Jimage filesystem provider isn't backported, one has to run the IDE on Java9 in order to code Java9
−
** Should we have 3.7 and 4.1 release trains? allow projects to choose? - Discussions ongoing with PC, Foundation (enough resources to support this?)
+
** 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)
−
* John - '''Eclipse 4.0 Release Review'''
+
−
** Need to go public now to have 1-week review period
+
−
* Dani - need to start publishing the '''3.6.1 freeze plan'''
+
−
* Dani - '''separate groups for resources and runtime'''
+
−
** Too small micro-components make operation harder
+
−
** McQ 0, Martin 0, Dani +1, John +1 (but strive for more simplicity on other areas)
+
−
* Vacations - McQ 2 weeks off starting Aug 16
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jul 14, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, Dani
+
'''June 17, 2015''' - Dani, John, Martin, Alex
−
* Dani - '''Problem launching Oracle/Sun jre6u21 on Windows'''
+
* John: '''Mars''' Platform in good shape for Mars - EPP respin for Error Reporting
−
** {{bug|319514}} Quickly runs out of Permgen space, because the vendor name has changed and so the -XXPermGen flag is not appended
+
* Dani: '''Crashes with Java 8''' - Potentially will add to the online README
−
** Put in a quick workaround for 3.6.1, patch ahead of time (some people wanted a 3.6a but we don't think that's worth the ripple)
+
** Happens in the JIT, with latest Oracle Java 8 (with 8 Cores and very specific circumstances)
−
** Most commercial products ship a VM, so likely not as bad as thought
+
** See {{Bug|465693}} - Probably https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8078262
−
*** Very natural that failure can happen when we don't control the VMs and the VM has custom arguments
+
* Alex: '''XDG Application''' - looks like Docker but a similar idea
−
** Only a windows issue for now (Linux parses version and looks for "hotspot")
+
** Environment description of the runtime - helps specifying the line-up of library versions that we test against and use
−
** Martin: Placing a .hotspotrc file somewhere is another possible workaround
+
** Big part of GNOME / GTK already pushing for it, might make sense to consider alignment
−
** Dani and Martin propose updating the FAQ, adding a Readme section, circulating the information about workarounds should be sufficient.
+
** 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/>
−
'''Jul 7, 2010:''' - McQ, Jeff, Martin, John, Dani
 
−
* McQ - '''Graduating e4 without changing the name'''
 
−
** Jeff - a little effort upfront on messaging may pay off really big in the longer run ... picking up 4.0 without proper messaging may end up in lot negative press
 
−
** eg messages about the state of Performance, BIDI, ... cf Eclipse 4.0 "Early Adopter Release"
 
−
* Dani - '''BREE to 1.5 for JDT-UI''', what is the process?
 
−
** '''approved''', all in favor, eat our own dogfood, 1.6 does not provide much benefit
 
−
* Dani - '''Checkin Policies for 3.6.1 Maintenance Stream'''
 
−
** We should have more control over what goes into M-builds .. what's the least intrusive way doing so?
 
−
** McQ suggests M7-ish policies + endgame . Dani suggests mandatory 1-committer code review. Martin requires fix verification.
 
−
** Bring up the topic on Arch call, since committers are affected .. the goal is keeping quality high and having change control.
 
  
−
<hr/>
+
'''June 10, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
−
'''Jun 30, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, John
+
* Dani: 4.5RC4 looking good, no more fixes planned
−
* No negative response yet about switching to Java 6 reference platforms
+
* Dani: Working on Java 9 feature patch
−
** Components free to move up but not a free-for-all. Justify reasons for moving up on eclipse-pmc mailing list.
+
* Alex: PC discussing a change in the release train
−
** In many cases there is little added benefit of Java 6 so Java 5 is more likely as a bundle execution environment
+
** Current common ground seems to be a request for more release points, and projects could decide whether they do features or maintenance
−
* 4.0 release and bundle/package naming
+
** From Platform point of view, stability is key. Some key contributors not interested doing
−
** Agreed that we will not migrate bundle/package namespaces at this time
+
** Martin: How to also cater to contributors who want their contributions released soon ?
−
** e4 API is not ready so the separation is helpful to divide it from the mature API
+
*** Martin Idea: With Tycho, building the Platform is easier so ask contributors build themselves
−
** It is not simply a package name issue, there are also class names containing "e4". Need to work through the process of merging the new API with the old, but this will take time
+
*** 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/>
−
'''Jun 23, 2010:''' - Jeff, John
+
'''June 3, 2015''' - Alex, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
−
* No topics
+
* Dani: '''Mars Endgame'''
 +
* Dani: Please vote for release review
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jun 16, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, Dani, Jeff
+
'''May 20, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ
−
* McQ - '''Java 4 going away''' (was EOL since October 2008, Java 5 EOL since October 2009)
+
* Dani: '''Security Update''' - Platform work done, Orbit updated, reached out to Wayne and other affected projects.
−
** Dani: Don't bump up any BREBump up to 1.5 only if needed
+
* Dani: '''RC2 Build''' - too many bugs assigned, Lars on Vacation, Dani will fill in
−
** Jeff: If moving off 1.4, why not move up to 1.6 ?
+
* McQ: '''Too Many Platforms Built?''' - Who's really hurt by "too many builds" ?
−
*** Reality is that we want the tiny Foundatation-1.1 or the big wad, and 1.5 is no better than 1.6
+
** Will meet with Mike & Foundation tomorrow, Alex is also interested (Dani to check).
−
*** Equinox may start using Generics and down-compile to 1.4 ... think about what's in ercp
+
−
** Start a cross-project discussion... question is whether everyone who depends on Platform has 1.6 VM Support
+
−
** Martin has no problem with 1.6, suggest asking on cross-project / some of the bigger players (e.g. Jetty, Modeling, ...)
+
−
*** McQ to ask Boris bring up with the Board
+
−
* Martin, Jeff, Dani vacation next 2 weeks (likely not on the call).
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jun 9, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, McQ, John
+
'''May 13, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Martin
−
* Dani - '''Approval for Docs''' - flexibility around docs is good, but after RC4 is too late.
+
* John, Dani - Mars Endgame looking good
−
* Dani - '''Re-Opening HEAD''' - basically OK, to be discussed at the Arch call.
+
* Alex - {{bug|465874}} Lucene 5 looking good, almost done - Ready to commit as soon as CQs are in and Mars+1 is open
−
* McQ - '''Shutting down status messages''' for rest of the month except for really noteworthy things.
+
* JDT for Java 9 - will need a wider discussion with EMO on make it easier to publish the work, e.g. in normal builds
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jun 2, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, McQ, John, McQ
+
'''May 6, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, John
−
* Dani - '''ECF Issues''': Why does Eclipse have a process with Approvals while ECF does not. At the moment, there is a mutual dependency.
+
* Dani: '''Java 9 timing''' - slight delay
−
** Once we decided to consume them, we have no control over their rules.
+
* Dani: RC1 preps
−
** Our only option is not consuming late changes from them (and thus burn the community and them).
+
** 2-day test pass went fine - 2 severe issues found, will be addressed
−
** John - there are some cases where we could push back a bit more (without going to the limit of not consuming at all).
+
** Request to watch PMC mailing list for API exceptions and defect approvals
−
** 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.
+
* John: '''PC Discussion on Release Cycles'''
−
** 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.
+
** Multiple releases per year PLUS maintenance streams seems like overkill
−
* John - '''Builds after RC4'''
+
** Consider an approach like Orion that just moves constantly forward
−
** Need PMC agreement. John going to discuss cross-project criteria.
+
** Especially for the Platform, being rock solid is most important. Still to attract new contributors we need to allow more frequent "feature updates".
−
** 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.'''
+
*** A model where both "stable/maintenance" _and_ "features" are contributed to the train might be too much work/overhead.
−
** 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.
+
*** Consider a model like Ubuntu, ... with some release numbers being "stable/LTS base" and others being "in-between feature releases" ?
−
* John - '''When to start 3.7 and 3.6.1 builds''' - defer to next week.
+
*** Consider a model like LTS for maintenance fixes / aside mainstream just moving forward ?
  
−
<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.
 
  
−
<hr/>
+
'''April 15, 2015''' - Dani, John, McQ, Alex, Martin
−
'''May 19, 2010:''' - Dani, McQ, Martin, Jeff, John
+
* Dani: '''Java 1.7 Changes'''
−
* John - {{bug|27930}} '''Naming of Eclipse Classic'''
+
** Some bundles have been moved to a 1.7 BREE by new committers, even after API freeze
−
** McQ - No other package on that page is the output of a single project, would want to see Eclipse SDK removed from packages page
+
** Rule has always been "we move up when there's a reason to move up". We won't move up without reason.
−
** Jeff - "RCP/Plugin Developer" used to be direct replacements (SDK + Mylyn + XML Editor), but now also includes RAP (217MB)
+
*** Dani: Moving the BREE may even cause API changes, so should only be done when incrementing the minor version (5% risk)
−
** Dani - Some people go to downloads/ and then look for a milestone
+
*** Alex: Such updates allow staying current and not get to "rewrite is needed" state (thus needed) but has to happen before M6 (API freeze)
−
** "Development Builds" tab provides access to milestones of packages; "Projects" tab provides access to direct project output.
+
** Alex suggest not accepting additional changes, but not reverting either (to avoid churn)
−
** '''Resolution:''' 650.000 people have downloaded classic (#2 download), even scrolling down - changing this is a waste.
+
* Dani: '''Batik 1.6 update'''
−
* 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)
+
−
** 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
+
−
** '''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
+
'''April 8, 2015''' - Dani, Martin, Alex, John, McQ
−
* Remaining work for Release - John: Checklist (Docs, collective N&N etc... IP Logs end May)
+
* Dani: '''Batik''' - Platform is good, Train may need to update, perhaps updating one bundle only would suffice. John will follow up.
−
** [[Eclipse/Release checklist]], and [[Eclipse Doc Checklist]]. '''AI Dani''' has another one for Docs - will update for 3.6 and send offline
+
* Alex: '''SWT for GTK 3 News'''
−
** [[Platform-releng-faq#Eclipse_Release_checklist]] also links to [[3.3 Release checklist]]
+
** GTK port finally decoupled from X11 - it renders on Wayland now, can switch the renderer to a pure HTML one
−
* 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
+
** This opens up opportunities (but depends on hosts that have GTK).
−
* Eclipse SDK 4.0 Naming
+
−
** 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
+
−
* API Deletion - luceneSearchParticipant
+
−
** Deprecation should include a migration path (if it exists).
+
−
** Will document deletions in the migration guide (and probably also in the README)
+
−
** Martin: Add a Bugzilla Keyword for API Deletions, will make it very easy to create a query for all pending API deletions
+
−
** Jeff: Whatever we do, current deletions should be examplary.
+
  
−
<hr/>
 
−
'''May 5, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, John, Dani
 
−
* Martin - {{bug|309059}} root cert validity? - Tom investigating, no new info
 
−
* Martin - How to mark issues for [[Polish3.6]] (UNC issues, Launcher vmargs {{bug|149994}}) - who sets the Bugzilla polish kwd?
 
−
** 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).
 
−
* John - Helios Plan update
 
−
* John - API Removal
 
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Apr 28, 2010:''' - Jeff, Martin, John, McQ, Dani
+
'''April 1, 2015''' - McQ, Alex, Martin, Dani (Regrets: John travelling)
−
* 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]
+
* Alex: '''GTK 3.16''' seeing issues again - fixed some crashes, but scrolling is still entirely broken
−
** 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)
+
** SWT uses a number of things that GTK declares as "implementation detail"
−
** Consensus: ''No concerted effort'', there are likely other more pressing issues; but ''investigate and prioritize what we find, and fix if possible''.
+
* PMC approval on piggyback CQ's (AC question forwarded by John)
−
** <b><i>Running on UNC is considered a Polish item</i></b>.
+
** Dani sent [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02332.html our position] to John in order to update the AC
−
* 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
+
'''March 18, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ, John
−
* John - extended '''2 day test pass''' for M7 on Mon and Tue
+
* John: '''EclipseCon''' - Bigger this year due to LocationTech (750 attendees)
−
* Jeff - '''Eclipse 4.0 naming'''
+
** Mark Reinhold keynote and "after-session" on Java 9
−
** 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
+
** Much interest in Orion JS tooling / editor, also on desktop
−
** Jeff - the message should be that it's (a) new, (b) cool, (c) not quite done yet
+
** Public face of Eclipse Platform at the conference was much more diverse than in the past (Lars Vogel, Max Anderson, Google ...)
−
** 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
+
* Dani: {{bug|458730}} '''Mars Plan Update'''
−
** Biggest problem will be people who don't follow the Community and just get 4.0 because they heard about it
+
* Dani: '''e4 project leadership''' approved by EMO
−
** Jeff - Comes down to setting expectations. Naming is one aspect of this, there's other aspects.
+
* Dani: Szymon Brandys resigned as Platform/Resources co-lead. Need to +1 on the mailing list
−
** 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
 
−
* 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)
 
−
** 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.
 
−
** 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.
 
−
** Jeff: Try have a look at {{Bug|308157}} Jarfile cache now limited to 100. Reason might just be cycling through more Jar's.
 
−
* John, Dani - '''Polish List'''
 
−
* John - '''e4 plan update'''. Waiting on McQ, wants an accurate list on what's graduating.
 
−
** Jeff - once something is in 4.0 you cannot remove in 4.x so better think twice before graduating.
 
−
** 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.
 
−
** 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.
 
−
** 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.
 
−
** Today, we use "SDK" for (a) tools+source+docs, or (b) runtime+source+docs. None of both is really an SDK.
 
−
** Better call the target stuff just "targets".
 
−
** Developer docs as part of the tooling is wrong ... should be associated with targets instead.
 
−
** John: p2 does have the ability to install into multiple profiles (plan = multiple profiles)... might be (mis)used for this, is it a hack?
 
−
** Jeff: Much target provisioning was deferred off 3.6
 
  
−
<hr/>
+
'''March 11, 2015 - no meeting (EclipseCon)'''
−
'''Apr 7, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Jeff, John
+
−
* Builds - short call
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Mar 31, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, John
 
−
* Martin - '''EclipseCon Report'''
 
−
** 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...)
 
−
** 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/>
+
'''March 4, 2015''' - Dani, McQ, Martin, John
−
'''Mar 17, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin
+
* Dani: '''e4 leadership''' - Dani will volunteer to co-lead
−
* McQ: '''git''' vs CVS: Should there be contributions by Platform on Egit?
+
* Dani: '''BREEs''' - documentation about how to pick the EE
−
** 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.
+
** Recommending the "earliest generally supported JRE that provides the capabilities you need"
−
* 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.
+
** Would like an URL on the page pointing to the most recent plan (talking to Wayne)
−
** McQ unsure whether this is worthwile, since all industry trends go towards more web integration. '''AI Martin''' follow up with Grant
+
* John: '''greatfix contest'''
−
* Dani: '''Performance and Polish''' passes
+
** Dani: Working well - some very small contributions but some also very large (eg Customize Perspective fixes)
−
** All teams need to fix the issues that Frederic finds. M7 is the performance and polish pass. Prioritize items.
+
* John: '''EclipseCon''' - numbers looking good; join Planning Council Breakfast as delegate for Dani
−
* 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
+
'''February 25, 2015''' - Dani, Martin McQ
−
* 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.
+
* No topics
−
** See also {{bug|261874}} and Wiki [[Provisional API Guidelines Update Proposal]]
+
−
** "Old School" wanted to make provisional API deliberately painful. Migrating "provisional" to real without renaming will make breakage more subtle
+
−
** The game has changed: Adding x-internal, friends and API Tooling works much better than before, making it clear where API is provisional
+
−
** 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
+
'''February 18, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
−
* Martin: Remove org.eclipse.update.configurator and related bundles from SDK? As per {{bug|304505}} it makes Eclipse slow even when off.
+
* Alex: '''Building Native Launchers'''
−
** Dani: Might be more than a packaging issue, somebody would have to invest
+
** Current way of building is kinda unpredictable - even if getting some agreement on versions to use, results are kinda unpredictable
−
** McQ: Should fix the Performance issue at any rate, regardless of other issues.
+
** Pushing towards Hudson RHEL builders at least at the EF to get more transparency and automation - attempt to mimic the infrastructure at IBM
−
* John sick, Dani vacation next week.
+
** 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
  
−
<hr/>
+
* Alex: '''{{bug|459399}} - Policy for recommended minimum execution environments for bundles'''
−
'''Feb 24, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ
+
** Dani: It works today
−
* 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
+
*** 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/>
−
'''Feb 17, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, John
+
'''February 11, 2015''' - Dani, Alex
−
* Martin: {{bug|196337}} Pushing CDT Spawner into the Platform?
+
* no topics
−
** John, Dani: Platform could only accept it when there is use for it in the SDK. Otherwise it would just bloat the Platform
+
−
** 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
 
−
* We agreed to list WebKitGTK and libsoup 2.4 as works-with prerequisites
 
−
* We need to find consensus on {{bug|243582}} (embedding source info in binaries)
 
−
* 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
 
  
−
<hr/>
+
'''February 4, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
−
'''Feb 03, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin
+
* Alex: With GTK-3.15.[345] , Eclipse is entirely unusable
−
* Dani: {{Bug|301563}} - Fast project import from snapshot data
+
** Alex has some dirty workarounds to make it start, but still many issues like trees not painted, ...
−
** 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)
+
** 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
−
** 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.
+
* Dani: Working on Solaris 64-bit
−
** 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
 
−
* Dani: Markus Keller taking over JDT UI
 
−
* John: M6 Splashscreen for Eclipsecon: {{bug|297355}}
 
−
* McQ: Removing Builds - SWT needs Linux-Motif, so only WPF about to be removed
 
−
** In discussions with Microsoft, it turned out that WPF is not required to get full Windows 7 experience under Win32
 
−
** XAML for styling was meant to be a cool idea but never got flying
 
−
** Socialize people with this -- find whether people are inerested in contributing on this, if yes then we should support them
 
−
* Still working the IBM approval process for travelling to Eclipsecon
 
−
* Avoid merging major feature work after a milestone's Tuesday test pass
 
  
 +
'''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/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''Jan 20, 2010:''' - John, Dani, McQ, Martin
 
−
* McQ: Contacted Steve N, still interested but unlikely to get more energy for investing into Eclipse
 
−
* John: 3.5.2 test pass tomorrow, but yesterday's I-build been a mess
 
−
* McQ: Message about supporting Open JDK in a blog ... status should be "nice that it works but it's not a reference platform"
 
  
 +
'''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