Skip to main content

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

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Eclipse/PMC"

(→‎Meeting Minutes)
(→‎Meeting Minutes)
(278 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 =
−
'''August 10, 2011:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ, John
+
 
−
* Dani / Martin - '''Debug Flexible Hierarchy "provisional.api" namespace'''
+
'''November 25, 2015''' - McQ, Martin, Alex
−
** Cannot be moved into an "API" namespace without breaking external non-SDK clients since types are leaked from internal packages
+
* Alex: '''Bumping SWT to Java8'''
−
** Q1: Move framework to a place outside Debug?
+
** Lars wants to use Lambdas {{bug|481195}}; Markus keller wants static helper methods;
−
** Q2: Declare "internal" packages as API? - API Tools won't be usable
+
** Stephan Herrmann - University Research for Thread safety through typed annotations
−
** McQ: Is it really impossible to add new API in parallel while keeping the old one in place for now?
+
*** Are they ready to contribute? - Probably yes, needs to be clarified; having better dev support for Thread Safety will be a huge help
−
*** Issues: (1) Performance, (2) bugs due to delegating, (3) is it worth doing that work? CDT already marked x-friends - Debug could offer the same for other clients.
+
*** Dani: Thinks that going to Java8 feels a bit early for SWT, which is at the bottom of the technology stack ... would prefer 1 year later
−
** McQ: Do we anticipate a huge Community out there just waiting for stuff to become full API? Then it's probably worth it...
+
*** John: Lambda support doesn't necessarily require SWT to be Java 8 itself (it could just be more lambda friendly)
−
*** But at this point any potential consumers already consume, so it's likely not worth the pain of renaming
+
**** Won't help with base listeners, but probably with mouse events and related .. follow up in the bugreport
−
*** Dani's suggestion: Go into a separate bundle and re-export, such that clients don't need debug
+
**** Labdas are more than syntactic sugar, it's more efficient ... still there is more value in Thread safety annotations
−
** John: Unless packages were intended to be API from the beginning, it's likely not API quality (that's likely also why Boris didn't want it in Jface)
+
*** McQ: Assumes there would be an extensive discussion on cross-project anyways ... but there is evidence now we could get value from doing this.
−
** Martin: Would really want to see namespace refactored... quality standards..
+
* Dani: '''Update on Move of platform.text'''
−
** John: Had the experience in p2, it was much more than just package renaming
+
** Approval from IP, will soon move to platform.ui - will keep platform.text bugzilla.
−
*** Very painful for user community, but in the end produced a much better results (but p2 was very young at that time)
+
* John: '''FEEP'''
−
** McQ: Can we provide backward compatible versions in parallel to the new namespace? We CANNOT break consumers.
+
** As discussed on the [[Architecture Council]]
−
*** Renaming only makes sense if mirroring/proxying is possible.
+
* McQ: '''Platform Support'''
−
*** Lots of consumers in the old form, how many new consumers would we gain in the new form?
+
** Many Platforms are not really active - IBM keeps alive some of them, for example RHEL4
−
** Martin: Create a fork / clone on the UI side for new consumers, as real API?
+
** Recent mailinglist asking for Mac 32bit, have we done enough on announcements ?
−
*** McQ: Only makes sense if there's a community just waiting to pick this up.
+
** '''Agreement''' there's no case for catering more to people who don't read announcements and follow the project. Having a mailinglist ask once in a while is OK.
−
*** Dani: Debug itself could not move to the new framework without breaking clients ... so we'd not have any clients inside the SDK
+
** Dani: Planning Update for Neon / M4 - please comment on the bug.  
−
** McQ: It's non-trivial work, and before starting it we'd need to verify there's consumers for it
+
*** John: Plan document is not really exhaustive on the oldest working Platform - RHEL4 surely won't work in Neon.
−
** Learnings from the past: Not keep stuff in provisional for so long any more
+
** Alex: Consider a "Build your Own" approach for the more obscure Platforms? - Frees us from keeping older binaries in sync
−
** Resolution: '''Pawel to find consumers for a refactored new bundle, then decide if / how to do the work'''
+
*** Did that for ARM32 and ARM64 in master - can build by just calling maven
−
* Dani: '''Java 7 - Segfault due to loop optimizations''' ([http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/08/java7-hotspot details])
+
*** McQ: Who would ever validate that scripts are still valid... (Linux community: provides no binaries at all, who validates?)
−
** Occurs a lot inside Apache Lucene, how to communicate that?
+
*** Alex: Providing scripts is a lot less work than providing stable and widely compatible binaries (about 1/3 of the work)
−
** McQ: send to eclipse-dev and cross-project
+
 
−
** Oracle aware of the issue - working on an early refresh, workaround exists (disable loop optimizations via -XX:-UseLoopPredicate)
+
<hr/>
−
** Another JIT bug was fixed by Oracle before GA because we reported it
+
'''November 18, 2015''' - Alex, John, Dani
−
** AI Dani '''Talk to Oracle when an update can be expected, soon send a message to eclipse-dev / cross-project'''
+
* Dani: EclipseCon NA 2016 submission from our team:
−
* Vacation notices:
+
** https://www.eclipsecon.org/na2016/session/scaling-eclipse-high-dpi-dots-inch-monitors-challenges-and-solutions
−
** Martin: away from August 14 to September 1
+
** https://www.eclipsecon.org/na2016/session/java-9-support-eclipse
−
** McQ: away from August 22 to September 5
+
* John: mentioned FEEP
 +
** Alex has concerns that there's not an equal opportunity for everyone
 +
* Alex: new Lucene version: would like to put it in
 +
** cross-projects has already been asked and we got no negative vote
 +
** CQs are approved
 +
** seems to be blocked by Orbit
 +
** ==> Alex to find out why and report back next week in the PMC call
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''August 3, 2011:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ
 
−
* Dani - successfully moved Java 7 support to 3.7.1, 3.8, 4.1.1 and 4.2 streams
 
  
 +
'''November 11, 2015''' - McQ, John, Dani
 +
* Discussed new meeting time that works for Martin
 +
** John to send a note that proposes Tuesday, 11:00 EST / 17:00 CET (starting in two weeks)
 +
* John: Alex mentioned at EclipseCon that there's no one in SWT team overlooking cross-platform, e.g. to craft new APIs
 +
** owning one platform is a full-time job
 +
** would need another person in SWT
 +
** for now one of the two co-leads needs to own that task - Dani to talk to Pradeep and the co-leads
 +
* John to Dani: how was EclipseCon
 +
** Dani: Great! Lots of talking to people; spent quite some time at the Hackathon; only saw 4 talks
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''July 27, 2011:''' - Dani, John, McQ
 
−
* Discussed how many versions back PDE should support development on. Historically we used N-2 but currently it is N-7. The layers of compatibility are starting to become hard to manage. We agreed dropping support for versions prior to 3.6 is ok if there is a benefit in doing so (cleans up PDE, makes the situation less confusing for end user, etc). However PDE must handle existing plugins with old version numbers in the plugin.xml (possibly with a warning and a quick fix to update/remove the number).
 
−
* We have some rough days ahead: first release train milestone on 4.x, ongoing build pain from Git migration, merge of Java 7 into mainline, and lots of people on holidays. Hold onto your hats!
 
  
 +
'''October 28, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani
 +
* Dani: Discuss new meeting time that works for Martin
 +
** decided that John will send out a doodle poll
 +
* Dani: Discuss our position regarding the removal of committer emeritus ({{bug|480670}})
 +
** everyone agreed that we would like to keep this for the following reasons:
 +
*** it is a good way reward those committers who invested lots of their time and made significant contributions to a project
 +
*** it makes no sense to remove something that currently works and ask projects to maintain this on their website
 +
** we have to make sure that the emeritus list doesn't get stale
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''July 20, 2011:''' - Dani, Martin, John, Jeff
 
−
* Dani - '''p2 Installer {{bug|317785}}''' affects Java 7 users - when they want to update it looks like they are dead
 
−
** Regression test only fails once every 100 times .. might be more often in the wild
 
−
** Might need some note on the download page (clickthrough) - people dont read the readme
 
−
* John - '''git migration''' - parts from git / parts from CVS isn't that bad for now
 
  
 +
'''October 21, 2015''' - McQ, Alex, Dani
 +
* Dani: so far no negative vote in the vote to move platform.text into platform.ui
 +
* McQ: Martin can no longer join, McQ would like to move the meeting
 +
** detailed several alternatives but no fit yet
 +
** decided to continue the discussion in our next meeting
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''July 13, 2011:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin
+
 
−
* Want more Community involvement in the Eclipse PMC - "outside representation" in addition to companies with a commercial interest
+
'''October 14, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani
−
* nice Java 7 webcast last week - Mike Milinkovich mentions our Eclipse Java 7 Support (BETA)
+
* Dani: Community asked to move platform.text into platform.ui (see [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-text-dev/msg00484.html https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-text-dev/msg00484.html])
 +
** 3 solutions:
 +
*** make the move
 +
*** make a more radical move to merge everything into 'Platform'
 +
*** leave things as is and let new people join platform.text
 +
** McQ: merging everything together is not an option. Skills are too different. Resources, Debug and SWT need to be kept separate.
 +
** Dani: fine with the move as long as it does not serve as argument to merge everything into one pot
 +
** Alex: committers need to accept the move
 +
** PMC decision: OK with the move but Dani to ask the platform.text and platform.ui committers whether they are both OK with it. Dani to become co-lead of Platform UI
 +
 
 +
* John from Board Meeting: Eclipse Foundation wants to change perception that Eclipse is just an IDE. Therefore they would like to change the name of our project ("Eclipse").
 +
** McQ:
 +
*** this will not be for free. The name is used at many places (code, webpage, Help) and also by companies in their marketing
 +
*** maybe we just have to accept we made a mistake in the beginning and now live with it
 +
*** can't think of a good name - which indicates we shouldn't change it ("Platform" is not good and "Eclipse SDK" or "Eclipse IDE" hide that it is the base for "RCP" apps)
 +
** decided to talk about this again in the next call
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''July 6, 2011:''' - John, Dani, Martin
+
 
−
* Dani - on track with Java 7 work; Oracle interested in having good Eclipse support
+
'''October 7, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani, Martin
−
* git migration - Platform UI likely going to move this week
+
* Dani: '''{{bug|108668}} Default Text Encoding UTF-8 ?'''
−
** Paul has a tool for gathering build notes from git (currently a commandline script)
+
** On Linux and Mac, the Platform encoding is UTF-8 ; on Windows it's Cp1252 in most countries around the globe, even with Windows 10
 +
** Using the Platform encoding ensures interoperability with all local tools (editors, compilers, ...)
 +
*** '''Desire for UTF-8 only for Windows exchanging files with users on other systems'''
 +
*** '''Changing the encoding of an existing workspace after the fact is a no go''' (risk of data corruption when loading/saving a file, some encodings are lossy)
 +
*** '''Using an encoding different than the OS encoding is problematic too''' (risk of data corruption when importing or D&D files from the OS)
 +
** Proposal 1: UTF-8 on new empty workspaces on Windows ? --&gt; Might mean that external tools don't work as expected
 +
** Proposal 2: Make users aware (Restore Oomph Welcome, which was disabled via {{bug|459486}}) ? --&gt; But many users don't understand implications, other tools also don't do this
 +
** Proposal 3: Ask for encoding when team-sharing since only team-shared projects cause issues (eg EGit hook) ? --&gt; But on "push" it may be too late
 +
** Martin: Encoding describes content, so should be managed with the content (as a project setting)
 +
*** '''--&gt; Proposal 4: Move to a model where we encourage setting the project-level encoding preference'''
 +
**** When creating a project, set the workspace default on project level automatically --&gt; ensures that projects remain sane over their lifetime
 +
**** For projects lacking the project-level preference, introduce a Problem Marker (Warning) with quick fix to either UTF-8 or workspace default
 +
** '''Decision:'''
 +
*** '''We won't change the workspace default''' -- no use breaking existing users
 +
*** '''We'll set the project encoding pro-actively'''
 +
** Open questions:
 +
*** Do we need tooling to convert project from encoding A to encoding B (if project preference was set incorrectly initially) ?
 +
*** Shall we try setting source encoding on drag-and-drop, or shall the project dictate the policy ?
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''June 15, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Dani, Martin, Jeff
+
'''September 30, 2015''' - McQ, John, Alex, Dani
−
* John - '''git migration''': should egit be part of the SDK ?
+
* Dani: will send a note to PMC list asking to approve new Debug leadership (Sarika)
−
** Build-time circular dependencies. Keep SDK small, but make it a very simple and obvious step to obtain egit.
+
* Dani: we should finalize our API removal discussion from last week
−
** It's already easy to update - milestone to mileston SDK update is a single step for SDK + egit.
+
** agreed that APIs marked for removal have to be annotated with @noreference, @noextend and @noimplement
−
* John - '''git migration''' and the mapfiles
+
** agreed that components should be allowed to remove API but they have to provide good reasons
−
** In orion, just tag HEAD of the build branch
+
** agreed that we won't allow to delete APIs simply because they are deprecated
−
** Dani: need to make sure that build notes can still be created
+
** agreed that the PMC will decide case by case i.e. there will be no general rule
 +
** regarding version numbering we decided to also decide this case by case
 +
** Dani to update the removal document and have it reviewed by the PMC
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''June 1, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Dani
+
 
−
* Some discussion of proposed Eclipse Foundation security policy
+
'''September 23, 2015''' - Dani, John, Alex, Martin
−
* We still want to see the disclosure time-frame being 3 months after the release containing the fix. Not all of our consumer community has the build technology or expertise to apply source patches to their products. Making sure the fix is in a maintenance release is the only practical way for some people to consume fixes
+
* Dani: '''JDT Core''' - Co-lead going to step up
−
* It would be nice for critical security fixes to appear in the simultaneous release repository even after the SR2 time period. p2 would need some small amount of work to be able to flag critical/security patches and automatically notify the user about them being available. Nobody has signed up to do this work.
+
* Dani: '''API Removal Discussion'''
−
* Some discussion of Git migration. There is no need to move everything at once since our build can handle homogeneous inputs from both CVS and Git. One possibility is migrating Equinox as a first step. The most complicated piece is migrating the repository containing the builder itself. We will need to decide on where map files and documentation go: likely some kind of "common" repository for Eclipse TLP.
+
** 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 25, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Dani, Martin
+
'''September 16, 2015''' - John, Martin
−
* Missing CQ's for old legacy stuff in old update sites / repos
+
* John: '''API Removal Discussion'''
−
** No problem for ZIP's (we can move to archive)
+
** No urgency now -- changes have been reverted for now, and scheduled for 2017
−
** OK with removing some legacy old stuff... How many years back to keep old stuff?
+
** Updating the major of a bundle knowingly breaks everyone/most adopters
−
* Java 7 and 3.7.1
+
*** In the past, breaking changes have often been small enough to work without increasing the major
−
** Mike M OK with including in 3.7.1 (when it's stable enough)
+
*** One can argue that removing TableTreeViewer is big enough to warrant updating the major
 +
** Versioning packages has not been done in the past due to the huge upcoming maintenance effort when starting to do so
 +
** "Release Version" is decoupled from "bundle versions" already (and may move to date-based versions eg "2016.1" with rolling updates moving forward
 +
** --&gt; will have more discussion next week
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''May 4, 2011:''' - Jeff, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
+
'''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
  
−
* RC1 test pass went well overall
+
* Software is getting more important - would be good to better support multicore
−
* Investigating an SWT blocker preventing checkbox tables from working
+
 
−
* There is a problem with the Ant mail task with Ant 1.8. Ant mail requires an optional extra jar to be added. In Ant 1.7 this didn't cause build to fail, but in Ant 1.8 it does. Our conclusion was to document in the migration guide but take no other action.
+
* John: '''IntelliJ change in licensing / sales model'''
−
* Git migration:
+
** Many eclipse-positive comments on the announcement blog
−
** Kim and DJ are investigating migration of the build to Git. Making progress but don't have a full build working yet
+
** Possibility putting Money on Eclipse Development may become interesting for companies in this context
−
** We should consider summer 2011 for migration. For those teams with forked code between 3.x/4.x, they are finding it difficult to keep fixes in sync and potentially git can help with that.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''April 27, 2011:''' - Jeff, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
+
'''September 2, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, John
−
* Dani '''still 100 bugs tagged 3.7''' - need to remind in the archcall to properly tag target milestones
+
* Dani: '''EclipseDay India''' on Saturday, 200 attendees wanted to join, hat to cut to 150
−
* John '''EDL for Examples'''
+
** Keynote by Mike Milinkovich - large Community
−
** Value of examples is they're there to be used - there's no business value in holding on to IP via Copyright so EDL seems right
+
 
−
** Re-licensing existing examples is difficult (eg SWT examples); but new examples should go under EDL
+
* Dani: '''Policy for and Mars.2'''
−
** Including examples in distributed features must take care of fixing abouts
+
** Do we want to stick to the "Service" model or allow feature updates ?
−
* John '''3.7 plan final update''': all plan items committed or deferred; update to RH6
+
** 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/>
−
'''April 20, 2011:''' - Jeff, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
+
'''August 19, 2015''' - Alex, Dani
−
* Jeff,Martin '''Builds at Eclipse''' - Work ongoing. IBM Mac has been donated. Mac testing has problems with some weird vnc bug
+
* nothing to discuss
−
** Martin - could kick a 3.6.2+ build and artifacts OK, but confused by lots of warning messages. Kim responded immediately, but can this be made "more official" ?
+
−
** Public Builds - get the engineering underpinnings in place, then polish afterwards
+
−
** Won't get a lot better in 3.7 but could make it a plan item for 3.8
+
−
** John agrees that improving the warning messages to be more informative is a good thing - Kim's very helpful
+
−
* Dani '''Polish Bug to be prioritized''': {{bug|342648}} In SWT on Linux, RTL mode, Tree.getItem(Point) gives invalid result.
+
−
** Regression ?
+
−
** McQ: Every GTK version needs work - maybe it's specific to a new GTK; might be more than a P2
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''April 13, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Martin, Dani, Jeff
+
'''August 12, 2015''' - John, Dani
−
* John: reminder to review proposed project charter update
+
* John asked whether we run on Windows 10
−
* Freeze plan for Indigo is ready
+
** 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)
−
* Reviewed new polish items
+
** ''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".''
−
* Investigating some 4.1 compatibility problems, possibly related to EMF changes
+
* Dani would like to get plan feedback by Friday EOD
 +
 
 
<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
 +
 +
* 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 [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02422.html request for voting]
 +
 +
* Dani: Switching to '''Jetty 9.3.x (which requires JRE 8)'''
 +
** JRE 8 from Oracle (and also from IBM) exists for all Reference Platforms
 +
** Except Solaris, because we only support Solaris 32-bit and the JRE only exists as 64-bit
 +
** But the Plan for Neon is to have 64-bit Solaris support
 +
** New Language features in Java 8 are adopted, contributors would like to start using Java 8
 +
** McQ: In the past, staying on older Java was desired to enable more widespread use ... today, this argument does not seem valid any more, in fact likely more contributions / community is enabled by moving to Java 8
 +
** Dani: Only concern is some "non reference" Platforms like HP-UX might not have JREs initially; but that's OK as long as the reference platforms are good
 +
** '''AGREEMENT''' to move to JRE 8 and allow projects to use Java 8 in their code.
 +
 +
* Dani: Looking for a contributor for SWT improvements for GTK3
 +
 +
* Martin: '''libwebkitgtk-3 on Ubuntu 14 forcing GTK 2''' not working ?
 +
** Alex: Using libwebkitgtk-4 which is much more stable, but not implementing the full SWT API
 +
** Most distros don't ship libwebkit for gtk-2 any more since it's not supported upstream any more and has many security issues
 +
 +
* Alex: '''Build SWT at the Foundation'''
 +
** Work with the Foundation going well, expect to have RHEL machines deployed at the foundation next month
 +
  
−
'''March 30, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Martin, Dani
 
−
* Discussed and clarified the API approval guidelines. Will be announced in the arch call.
 
−
* Dani - Java 7 deferred from 3.7. GA planned together with 3.7.1.
 
−
** John: is feature work which might need review
 
−
* John - we need to prepare the Git migration
 
−
** John to ask DJ to do investigations
 
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 +
'''July 15, 22 and 29, 2015''' -- no meeting
  
−
'''March 23, 2011:''' - McQ, Dani
 
−
* Prioritized the [[Polish3.7]] list. This is a recurring task for the next few weeks.
 
−
* Discussed and agreed on API change approval process, see [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg01368.html PMC mailing list note].
 
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 +
'''July 8, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, John, Martin, Alex
 +
* John: '''Cross-Language Tooling Discussion''' on the eclipse.org-architecture-council and ide-dev mailing lists
 +
* decided to cancel the upcoming July meetings
  
−
'''March 9, 2011:''' - John, McQ
+
<hr/>
 +
'''July 1, 2015''' -- no meeting
  
−
* Ongoing discussion of direction for 2012 release train. Will continue discussion in email to ensure all PMC members are involved.
+
<hr/>
 +
'''June 24, 2015''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Alex
 +
* Dani: '''Java 9''' - <a href="http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/eclipse-java%E2%84%A2-9-support-beta-mars">EAR Feature Patch</a> on the Marketplace NOW
 +
** No JARs any more - JRE is doing things internally using "jimage" format; updated search etc to create projects and work against them
 +
** If the Jimage filesystem provider isn't backported, one has to run the IDE on Java9 in order to code Java9
 +
** Modules are just a list of packages (and can refer to other modules) - no real JSR describing the plan yet - seems like just a replacement of "Profiles" (and JARs)
 +
 
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''June 17, 2015''' - Dani, John, Martin, Alex
 +
* John: '''Mars''' Platform in good shape for Mars - EPP respin for Error Reporting
 +
* Dani: '''Crashes with Java 8''' - Potentially will add to the online README
 +
** Happens in the JIT, with latest Oracle Java 8 (with 8 Cores and very specific circumstances)
 +
** 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/>
−
'''March 2, 2011:'''
 
−
* McQ - Migrating to 4.x. Don't be disruptive when there is no need to. Want to avoid migration pain.
 
−
** New feature work will be in 4.x, but as long as there are committers working on 3.x it will stay alive
 
−
** Make sure that quality keeps up: Releng / Build, make long-term committers continue reviewing contributions
 
−
** Problem with 4.x is just the bugs (impeding productivity), it's not anything architectural
 
−
** '''Convene again next week and come up with a consistent message''', AI McQ get hold of Jeff for a statement
 
−
* John - '''3.6.2+ builds''' set up on Hudson now
 
−
** Kim's {{bug|338557}} Job's mostly ready, Martin is the first tester. Should inform the Community once things go smoothly
 
−
** Updating version numbers like going to a virtual never-existing "3.6.3" release in order to give a clear and consistent message
 
−
** Dani has an (internal) document - Martin: interested for TM and CDT projects - '''AI Dani''' send Doc to Martin for for meeting notes
 
−
** Always updating the micro by one only ... so if bundle was not updated in Helios SR1 or SR2, it should go .1 in 3.6.2+
 
  
−
'''February 23, 2011:'''
+
'''June 10, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin
−
* Martin - '''3.6.2+ M-Builds post 3.6.2''' - needed for adopters to get 3.6.2+ bundles signed; on demand only? If scheduled, how often?
+
* 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/>
−
'''February 16, 2011:'''
+
'''June 3, 2015''' - Alex, Dani, Martin, McQ, John
 +
* Dani: '''Mars Endgame'''
 +
* Dani: Please vote for release review
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''February 9, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Dani, Martin
+
'''May 20, 2015''' - Dani, Alex, Martin, McQ
−
* Dani - '''Builder bug''':  Theoretically, the builder bug can cause bad binaries shipped from Eclipse.org
+
* Dani: '''Security Update''' - Platform work done, Orbit updated, reached out to Wayne and other affected projects.
−
** But switching the builder now could have other consequences. Most people likely use the 3.6.0 or 3.6.1 builder
+
* Dani: '''RC2 Build''' - too many bugs assigned, Lars on Vacation, Dani will fill in
−
** Platform uses the 3.6.1 builder. Bug appeared in 3.6.0
+
* McQ: '''Too Many Platforms Built?''' - Who's really hurt by "too many builds" ?
−
** McQ thinks we should recommend using the new builder - John: can never know whether a problematic code construct is there or not
+
** Will meet with Mike & Foundation tomorrow, Alex is also interested (Dani to check).
−
** Provide a patched version of the 3.6.1 basebuilder as an option for people to use - '''AI John''' ask Kim to re-produce a new basebuilder, then respin RC4
+
−
* McQ - '''Builds at Eclipse.org'''
+
−
** IBM Ottawa consolidating 7 offices into 2, plan to not have a build lab
+
−
** Kim still frustrated with Foundation facilities; McQ talked to people both inside IBM and the Foundation
+
  
 +
<hr/>
 +
'''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
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
'''February 2, 2011:''' - Canceled (no topics)
+
'''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'''
 +
 
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 +
'''April 8, 2015''' - Dani, Martin, Alex, John, McQ
 +
* Dani: '''Batik''' - Platform is good, Train may need to update, perhaps updating one bundle only would suffice. John will follow up.
 +
* Alex: '''SWT for GTK 3 News'''
 +
** GTK port finally decoupled from X11 - it renders on Wayland now, can switch the renderer to a pure HTML one
 +
** This opens up opportunities (but depends on hosts that have GTK).
  
−
'''January 26, 2011:''' - Dani, John, Martin,
 
−
* Dani: {{bug|330534}} '''ObjectTeams Contribution''' - JDT might allow using their namespace as an exception, couple p2 bugs pending
 
−
** If the p2 solution cannot be done, OT/J will need to remain off the train
 
−
* Martin: Concerned about '''Eclipse 3.x quality''', many regressions and not being addressed
 
−
** {{bug|320329}} ThreadJob#waitForRun can spin when blockingJob is not RUNNING
 
−
*** '''Platform Runtime: Regression''' introduced in 3.6, can have severe Performance impact, reported 10-Jul, commenters unsure about approach to fix
 
−
*** A buggy contribution was accepted, and then the contributor left
 
−
*** John spent a lot of time.. there was a fix that didn't work
 
−
*** Dani: Could the contribution be pulled out? - No because it's new API (yield())
 
−
*** Contributor was quite good originally but then just switched teams and was no longer available
 
−
*** The new testcase from Markus Schorn might help narrowing down the case quickly
 
−
** {{bug|335153}} Regression: p2 downloads are much slower due to picking remote artifacts even when a local file: URL is available
 
−
*** '''p2: Regression''' introduced in 3.6, reported 24-Jan, testcase + patch attached, response pending
 
−
** {{bug|332840}} Wrong error about API change (Regression; works with 3.7M3)
 
−
*** '''API Tooling: Regression''' introduced in 3.7M4, reported 17-Dec, Olivier:  "I'll take a look" but no response since
 
−
** {{bug|332838}} Bogus potential null pointer access warning (regression; works with 3.6)
 
−
*** '''JDT: Regression''' introduced in 3.7M4, reported 17-Dec, Ayushman: "I'll investigate" but no response since
 
−
** {{bug|332507}} [regression] incomplete build path reported on o.e.rse.subsystem.shells.local
 
−
*** '''PDE UI: Regression''' introduced in 3.7M4, reported 14-Dec, initial traffic but no followup since 16-Dec
 
−
** {{bug|335466}} Regression: category.xml processing fails when "name" contains special chars
 
−
*** Just detected recently
 
−
** {{bug|313899}} [Progress] Every user-job causes a busy cursor to be shown for a minimum of 250ms
 
−
*** '''Platform UI''': Patch provided on 21-May, no response whatsoever from Platform UI
 
−
** John: There had been a fair bit of turnover, new committers getting up to speed ... having less experienced people is a fact
 
−
*** Identifying key bugs in the big bug database takes a lot of experience
 
−
** Dani: M5 is the Major feature freeze, so new feature / API work has highest priority ... so quality drop is somewhat expected in M5
 
−
** Even for regressions... if the regression is less critical than new bugs, it goes behind
 
−
** '''RESOLUTION:''' Make the important bugs visible to the component leads or PMC. It's natural that we sometimes need to ping on a bug. M5 is a problematic time.
 
−
* John: {{bug|335374}} '''Redhat 6 as a Reference Platform'''
 
−
** SWT team doing some final testing, then will put only RH6 on the Ref Platform list
 
−
* John: '''OpenJDK as a Reference Platform''' - Oracle is interested and might contribute testing
 
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
''' January 19, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Jeff, Dani, Martin
+
'''April 1, 2015''' - McQ, Alex, Martin, Dani (Regrets: John travelling)
−
* Jeff will be unavailable for meeting next 6-7 weeks
+
* Alex: '''GTK 3.16''' seeing issues again - fixed some crashes, but scrolling is still entirely broken
−
* John: How do we interpret "under the direction of the PMC" in [http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf Eclipse legal process]?
+
** SWT uses a number of things that GTK declares as "implementation detail"
−
** McQ: Not about approval, but about PMC being aware
+
* PMC approval on piggyback CQ's (AC question forwarded by John)
−
** Jeff: Goal is to indicate "Working with an Eclipse mindset", ie in close collaboration with a committer ... contributor must be aware of IP due diligence guidelines from the beginning of evolution of the code. We want to avoid introducing IP leaks by accepting legacy code that was written before assuming an Eclipse mindset.
+
** Dani sent [https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-pmc/msg02332.html our position] to John in order to update the AC
−
** McQ: This is about understanding the direction of Eclipse as a whole. Request a PMC +1 on the bug as work is being started. PMC should work with committer to ensure that contributor has been instructed about IP rules.
+
  
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
−
''' January 12, 2011:''' -  
+
'''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/>
 
<hr/>
−
''' January 5, 2011:''' - McQ, John, Dani, Jeff, Martin
+
 
−
* Dani: Component Lead progress? - Portal still doesn't have the correct list of components
+
'''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/>
 +
 
 +
'''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/>
  
 
= 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 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 12:41, 24 November 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

November 25, 2015 - McQ, Martin, Alex

  • Alex: Bumping SWT to Java8
    • Lars wants to use Lambdas bug 481195; Markus keller wants static helper methods;
    • Stephan Herrmann - University Research for Thread safety through typed annotations
      • Are they ready to contribute? - Probably yes, needs to be clarified; having better dev support for Thread Safety will be a huge help
      • Dani: Thinks that going to Java8 feels a bit early for SWT, which is at the bottom of the technology stack ... would prefer 1 year later
      • John: Lambda support doesn't necessarily require SWT to be Java 8 itself (it could just be more lambda friendly)
        • Won't help with base listeners, but probably with mouse events and related .. follow up in the bugreport
        • Labdas are more than syntactic sugar, it's more efficient ... still there is more value in Thread safety annotations
      • McQ: Assumes there would be an extensive discussion on cross-project anyways ... but there is evidence now we could get value from doing this.
  • Dani: Update on Move of platform.text
    • Approval from IP, will soon move to platform.ui - will keep platform.text bugzilla.
  • John: FEEP
  • McQ: Platform Support
    • Many Platforms are not really active - IBM keeps alive some of them, for example RHEL4
    • Recent mailinglist asking for Mac 32bit, have we done enough on announcements ?
    • Agreement there's no case for catering more to people who don't read announcements and follow the project. Having a mailinglist ask once in a while is OK.
    • Dani: Planning Update for Neon / M4 - please comment on the bug.
      • John: Plan document is not really exhaustive on the oldest working Platform - RHEL4 surely won't work in Neon.
    • Alex: Consider a "Build your Own" approach for the more obscure Platforms? - Frees us from keeping older binaries in sync
      • Did that for ARM32 and ARM64 in master - can build by just calling maven
      • McQ: Who would ever validate that scripts are still valid... (Linux community: provides no binaries at all, who validates?)
      • Alex: Providing scripts is a lot less work than providing stable and widely compatible binaries (about 1/3 of the work)

November 18, 2015 - Alex, John, Dani

November 11, 2015 - McQ, John, Dani

  • Discussed new meeting time that works for Martin
    • John to send a note that proposes Tuesday, 11:00 EST / 17:00 CET (starting in two weeks)
  • John: Alex mentioned at EclipseCon that there's no one in SWT team overlooking cross-platform, e.g. to craft new APIs
    • owning one platform is a full-time job
    • would need another person in SWT
    • for now one of the two co-leads needs to own that task - Dani to talk to Pradeep and the co-leads
  • John to Dani: how was EclipseCon
    • Dani: Great! Lots of talking to people; spent quite some time at the Hackathon; only saw 4 talks

October 28, 2015 - McQ, John, Alex, Dani

  • Dani: Discuss new meeting time that works for Martin
    • decided that John will send out a doodle poll
  • Dani: Discuss our position regarding the removal of committer emeritus (bug 480670)
    • everyone agreed that we would like to keep this for the following reasons:
      • it is a good way reward those committers who invested lots of their time and made significant contributions to a project
      • it makes no sense to remove something that currently works and ask projects to maintain this on their website
    • we have to make sure that the emeritus list doesn't get stale

October 21, 2015 - McQ, Alex, Dani

  • Dani: so far no negative vote in the vote to move platform.text into platform.ui
  • McQ: Martin can no longer join, McQ would like to move the meeting
    • detailed several alternatives but no fit yet
    • decided to continue the discussion in our next meeting

October 14, 2015 - McQ, John, Alex, Dani

  • Dani: Community asked to move platform.text into platform.ui (see https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-text-dev/msg00484.html)
    • 3 solutions:
      • make the move
      • make a more radical move to merge everything into 'Platform'
      • leave things as is and let new people join platform.text
    • McQ: merging everything together is not an option. Skills are too different. Resources, Debug and SWT need to be kept separate.
    • Dani: fine with the move as long as it does not serve as argument to merge everything into one pot
    • Alex: committers need to accept the move
    • PMC decision: OK with the move but Dani to ask the platform.text and platform.ui committers whether they are both OK with it. Dani to become co-lead of Platform UI
  • John from Board Meeting: Eclipse Foundation wants to change perception that Eclipse is just an IDE. Therefore they would like to change the name of our project ("Eclipse").
    • McQ:
      • this will not be for free. The name is used at many places (code, webpage, Help) and also by companies in their marketing
      • maybe we just have to accept we made a mistake in the beginning and now live with it
      • can't think of a good name - which indicates we shouldn't change it ("Platform" is not good and "Eclipse SDK" or "Eclipse IDE" hide that it is the base for "RCP" apps)
    • decided to talk about this again in the next call

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

  • Dani: bug 108668 Default Text Encoding UTF-8 ?
    • On Linux and Mac, the Platform encoding is UTF-8 ; on Windows it's Cp1252 in most countries around the globe, even with Windows 10
    • Using the Platform encoding ensures interoperability with all local tools (editors, compilers, ...)
      • Desire for UTF-8 only for Windows exchanging files with users on other systems
      • Changing the encoding of an existing workspace after the fact is a no go (risk of data corruption when loading/saving a file, some encodings are lossy)
      • Using an encoding different than the OS encoding is problematic too (risk of data corruption when importing or D&D files from the OS)
    • Proposal 1: UTF-8 on new empty workspaces on Windows ? --> Might mean that external tools don't work as expected
    • Proposal 2: Make users aware (Restore Oomph Welcome, which was disabled via bug 459486) ? --> But many users don't understand implications, other tools also don't do this
    • Proposal 3: Ask for encoding when team-sharing since only team-shared projects cause issues (eg EGit hook) ? --> But on "push" it may be too late
    • Martin: Encoding describes content, so should be managed with the content (as a project setting)
      • --> Proposal 4: Move to a model where we encourage setting the project-level encoding preference
        • When creating a project, set the workspace default on project level automatically --> ensures that projects remain sane over their lifetime
        • For projects lacking the project-level preference, introduce a Problem Marker (Warning) with quick fix to either UTF-8 or workspace default
    • Decision:
      • We won't change the workspace default -- no use breaking existing users
      • We'll set the project encoding pro-actively
    • Open questions:
      • Do we need tooling to convert project from encoding A to encoding B (if project preference was set incorrectly initially) ?
      • Shall we try setting source encoding on drag-and-drop, or shall the project dictate the policy ?

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, @noextend and @noimplement
    • 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=394211"

Back to the top