|
|
| (843 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | + | = Documents = |
| | + | Some documents written and/or used by the PMC: |
| | + | |
| | + | * [[E4/Graduation_4.0]] |
| | + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Unix Groups]] |
| | + | |
| | = Meeting Schedule = | | = Meeting Schedule = |
| | | | |
| − | The [http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/team-leaders.php Eclipse Project PMC] has a weekly phone meeting '''every wednesday at 10.30am EST'''. | + | The [http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/team-leaders.php Eclipse Project PMC] has a weekly phone meeting '''every Tuesday at 11.00am EST'''. |
| | | | |
| | = Meeting Minutes = | | = Meeting Minutes = |
| − | '''Jul 28, 2010:''' - McQ, John, Martin, Dani, Jeff
| |
| − | * 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/>
| + | See https://github.com/eclipse-platform/.github/wiki/PMC-Meeting-minutes for new minutes |
| − | '''Jul 21, 2010:''' - McQ, John, Martin, Dani
| + | |
| − | * McQ - '''State of Eclipse 4.0'''
| + | |
| − | ** Not where we'd like us to be, but converging fast and there seem no issues blocking shipping
| + | |
| − | ** Not slowing down people any more, and get some new capabilities (view tear-off etc)
| + | |
| − | ** Should we have 3.7 and 4.1 release trains? allow projects to choose? - Discussions ongoing with PC, Foundation (enough resources to support this?)
| + | |
| − | * 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/>
| + | March 30, 2022 - Alex, Tom, Lars |
| − | '''Jul 14, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, Dani
| + | * Discussion about simplification of the Github repo structure |
| − | * Dani - '''Problem launching Oracle/Sun jre6u21 on Windows''' | + | * Currently no plan to provide a Github for user to report issues, we rather |
| − | ** {{bug|319514}} Quickly runs out of Permgen space, because the vendor name has changed and so the -XXPermGen flag is not appended
| + | * For pull request there should no need to open a bug report / GH issue, all present PMC members agreed, to be discussed next week with Jay and MQ. |
| − | ** 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) | + | |
| − | ** Most commercial products ship a VM, so likely not as bad as thought | + | |
| − | *** Very natural that failure can happen when we don't control the VMs and the VM has custom arguments
| + | |
| − | ** Only a windows issue for now (Linux parses version and looks for "hotspot")
| + | |
| − | ** Martin: Placing a .hotspotrc file somewhere is another possible workaround
| + | |
| − | ** Dani and Martin propose updating the FAQ, adding a Readme section, circulating the information about workarounds should be sufficient.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | February 16, 2022 - Alex, Tom, Jay, Lars, McQ |
| − | '''Jul 7, 2010:''' - McQ, Jeff, Martin, John, Dani
| + | * IP log done for 2022-03, process might be removed by the foundation in the future |
| − | * McQ - '''Graduating e4 without changing the name'''
| + | * Auto-closed policy can now be decided by project, project committer can vote on it |
| − | ** 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 | + | * Support of additional architecture LoongArch and FreeBSD was discussed, for now we expect the builds outside of Eclipse.org for these architures |
| − | ** eg messages about the state of Performance, BIDI, ... cf Eclipse 4.0 "Early Adopter Release"
| + | ** building Eclipse might get easier with planned enhancements in Tycho |
| − | * Dani - '''BREE to 1.5 for JDT-UI''', what is the process? | + | * Bug reports from Bugzilla are not planned to be moved to Github, will continue to exist in Bugzilla |
| − | ** '''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/>
| |
| − | '''Jun 30, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, John
| |
| − | * No negative response yet about switching to Java 6 reference platforms
| |
| − | ** Components free to move up but not a free-for-all. Justify reasons for moving up on eclipse-pmc mailing list.
| |
| − | ** In many cases there is little added benefit of Java 6 so Java 5 is more likely as a bundle execution environment
| |
| − | * 4.0 release and bundle/package naming
| |
| − | ** Agreed that we will not migrate bundle/package namespaces at this time
| |
| − | ** e4 API is not ready so the separation is helpful to divide it from the mature API
| |
| − | ** 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
| |
| | | | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | '''January 19, 2022''' - Alex, Tom, Jay, Lars, McQ |
| − | '''Jun 23, 2010:''' - Jeff, John | + | * Eclipse aggregator build is currently migrated to Github |
| − | * No topics | + | * Github migration work of the aggregator is documented in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=577323 |
| | + | * The most important PGP work items are done with the help of Ed Merks, some secondary issues are still missing, e.g. such features are shown as unsigned |
| | + | * JFR Event are discussed in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=578055, PMC members should check so that we can discuss it next week |
| | | | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | '''January 12, 2022''' - Alex, Tom, Jay, McQ |
| − | '''Jun 16, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, Dani, Jeff | + | * Move to PGP signed content news to IDE WG and Planning Council |
| − | * McQ - '''Java 4 going away''' (was EOL since October 2008, Java 5 EOL since October 2009) | + | ** Well received so far |
| − | ** Dani: Don't bump up any BREBump up to 1.5 only if needed | + | ** 2022-03 to has the implementation, 2022-06 to do full switch |
| − | ** Jeff: If moving off 1.4, why not move up to 1.6 ? | + | ** we use PGP for content not delivered to Simrel |
| − | *** Reality is that we want the tiny Foundatation-1.1 or the big wad, and 1.5 is no better than 1.6 | + | ** Ed helps with implementation/bug fixes |
| − | *** Equinox may start using Generics and down-compile to 1.4 ... think about what's in ercp | + | ** only concern is critical CVE - that would require either help or PGP signed content being pushed to 2022-03 |
| − | ** Start a cross-project discussion... question is whether everyone who depends on Platform has 1.6 VM Support | + | *** To be further discussed if such an issue happens |
| − | ** Martin has no problem with 1.6, suggest asking on cross-project / some of the bigger players (e.g. Jetty, Modeling, ...) | + | * ECF relation |
| − | *** McQ to ask Boris bring up with the Board | + | ** Project is heavily under resourced |
| − | * Martin, Jeff, Dani vacation next 2 weeks (likely not on the call). | + | ** No one knows good reason to still be using Apache Httpclient, Java HttpClient is not tried out and the previous JVM Http code had severe limitations |
| | + | ** Development falling out on Platform releng for updates to Apache Httpclient, Windows proxy support and etc. is a no-go |
| | + | ** Possible plan |
| | + | *** Create Java Httpclient based connector for ECF or enhance the current default one to use Httpclient and not Httpconnection - removes need to update Apache Httpclient dependency, take care of windows specific bundles with JNA dependency and so on |
| | + | *** If previous doesn't uncover limitation in Java's Httpclient stop shipping Apache Httpclient connector |
| | + | *** Assuming 2 previous complete - look if it makes sense to not have ECF as a dependency at all to skip one cyclic dependency |
| | | | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | = Archive = |
| − | '''Jun 9, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, McQ, John
| + | |
| − | * Dani - '''Approval for Docs''' - flexibility around docs is good, but after RC4 is too late.
| + | |
| − | * Dani - '''Re-Opening HEAD''' - basically OK, to be discussed at the Arch call.
| + | |
| − | * McQ - '''Shutting down status messages''' for rest of the month except for really noteworthy things.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2021 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2021]] |
| − | '''Jun 2, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, McQ, John, McQ
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2020 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2020]] |
| − | * Dani - '''ECF Issues''': Why does Eclipse have a process with Approvals while ECF does not. At the moment, there is a mutual dependency. | + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2019 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2019]] |
| − | ** Once we decided to consume them, we have no control over their rules.
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2018 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2018]] |
| − | ** Our only option is not consuming late changes from them (and thus burn the community and them).
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2017 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2017]] |
| − | ** John - there are some cases where we could push back a bit more (without going to the limit of not consuming at all).
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2016 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2016]] |
| − | ** 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.
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2015 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2015]] |
| − | ** 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.
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2014 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2014]] |
| − | * John - '''Builds after RC4'''
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2013 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2013]] |
| − | ** Need PMC agreement. John going to discuss cross-project criteria.
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2012 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2012]] |
| − | ** 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.'''
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2011 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2011]] |
| − | ** 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.
| + | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2010 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2010]] |
| − | * John - '''When to start 3.7 and 3.6.1 builds''' - defer to next week.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <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/>
| + | |
| − | '''May 19, 2010:''' - Dani, McQ, Martin, Jeff, John
| + | |
| − | * John - {{bug|27930}} '''Naming of Eclipse Classic'''
| + | |
| − | ** McQ - No other package on that page is the output of a single project, would want to see Eclipse SDK removed from packages page
| + | |
| − | ** Jeff - "RCP/Plugin Developer" used to be direct replacements (SDK + Mylyn + XML Editor), but now also includes RAP (217MB)
| + | |
| − | ** Dani - Some people go to downloads/ and then look for a milestone
| + | |
| − | ** "Development Builds" tab provides access to milestones of packages; "Projects" tab provides access to direct project output.
| + | |
| − | ** '''Resolution:''' 650.000 people have downloaded classic (#2 download), even scrolling down - changing this is a waste.
| + | |
| − | * 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/>
| + | |
| − | '''May 12, 2010:''' - McQ, Martin, John, Jeff, Dani
| + | |
| − | * Remaining work for Release - John: Checklist (Docs, collective N&N etc... IP Logs end May)
| + | |
| − | ** [[Eclipse/Release checklist]], and [[Eclipse Doc Checklist]]. '''AI Dani''' has another one for Docs - will update for 3.6 and send offline
| + | |
| − | ** [[Platform-releng-faq#Eclipse_Release_checklist]] also links to [[3.3 Release checklist]]
| + | |
| − | * 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
| + | |
| − | * 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/>
| + | |
| − | '''Apr 28, 2010:''' - Jeff, Martin, John, McQ, Dani
| + | |
| − | * Martin - '''[[Eclipse/UNC_Paths]]''' - testing for 3.6 ? Bugzilla: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwords&short_desc=unc&classification=Eclipse&classification=RT&product=Equinox&product=Platform&product=JDT&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&product=PDE All open with UNC in the summary] | + | |
| − | ** Especially {{bug|289322}} and {{bug|262601}} are blocking for Martin, because these make it impossible to have Eclipse installed on an UNC path (common scenario in large organizations)
| + | |
| − | ** Consensus: ''No concerted effort'', there are likely other more pressing issues; but ''investigate and prioritize what we find, and fix if possible''.
| + | |
| − | ** <b><i>Running on UNC is considered a Polish item</i></b>.
| + | |
| − | * Jeff, McQ - '''Eclipse 4.0 Naming'''
| + | |
| − | ** Suggestion: "Eclipse 4.0 Indigo Preview"
| + | |
| − | ** McQ: Don't want to send a negative message - it ''is'' usable though add-on support may be missing
| + | |
| − | ** John: This is a new release of the Platform, but not all of Eclipse Foundation technology... unsure how to phrase that into a release name
| + | |
| − | ** Jeff: Based on this, putting Indigo into the name is a negative and may trigger false assumptions | + | |
| − | ** McQ: ''Eclipse SDK 4.0 Developer Release'' - sends the right message
| + | |
| − | ** Jeff: '''Come up with 3 or 4 suggestions and bounce these around'''. Start a public discussion. Check with other OSS projects, e.g. Andrew Overholt
| + | |
| − | * McQ - '''1.5 BREE for Resources to support Unicode Characters'''
| + | |
| − | ** Suggest everything on top of the base RCP move up to 1.5
| + | |
| − | ** Jeff: "Move when you need to and not before" - when do we "need to"
| + | |
| − | * John - '''[[Eclipse/API Central/API Removal Process]]
| + | |
| − | ** Just a compilation of things discussed before. '''Discuss on the Mailing List''' | + | |
| − | * McQ - '''Pascal as the OBR spec lead'''
| + | |
| − | ** From point of view of the Eclipse Project, can't imagine what value we'd get from participating in OBR spec. IBM might care.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | |
| − | '''Apr 21, 2010:''' - Jeff, Martin, John, Dani, McQ
| + | |
| − | * John - extended '''2 day test pass''' for M7 on Mon and Tue
| + | |
| − | * Jeff - '''Eclipse 4.0 naming'''
| + | |
| − | ** 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
| + | |
| − | ** Jeff - the message should be that it's (a) new, (b) cool, (c) not quite done yet
| + | |
| − | ** McQ - 4.0 won't be as performant as 3.x. Users will see the new cool presentation, but other than that it's like 3.6
| + | |
| − | ** Biggest problem will be people who don't follow the Community and just get 4.0 because they heard about it
| + | |
| − | ** Jeff - Comes down to setting expectations. Naming is one aspect of this, there's other aspects.
| + | |
| − | ** John - Ian organized an e4-evangelist call.
| + | |
| − | ** McQ - Most people will just consume the release train (Helios) anyways, and will notice that 4.0 is "different".
| + | |
| − | * Martin - {{bug|306822}} '''IncrementalBuilder.getRule()''' API addition: Ask James whether CDT Helios can pick up the change
| + | |
| − | * Martin - '''James for committer''' - move to public policy of only considering committed contributions
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | |
| − | '''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/>
| + | |
| − | '''Apr 7, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin, Jeff, John
| + | |
| − | * Builds - short call
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <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/>
| + | |
| − | '''Mar 17, 2010:''' - McQ, Dani, Martin
| + | |
| − | * McQ: '''git''' vs CVS: Should there be contributions by Platform on Egit?
| + | |
| − | ** Martin: Don't know how well egit proceeded recently, Boris might know more... important point is that the major workflows are perfect. Looks like the major workflows have been identified already.
| + | |
| − | * Martin: '''WebkitGTK / MiniBrowser''': In addition to the recent WebkitGTK discussion, perhaps work on a "Minibrowser" API that can live with published frozen Mozilla API only? Many apps may not need the full feature-richness of today's Browser.
| + | |
| − | ** McQ unsure whether this is worthwile, since all industry trends go towards more web integration. '''AI Martin''' follow up with Grant
| + | |
| − | * Dani: '''Performance and Polish''' passes
| + | |
| − | ** All teams need to fix the issues that Frederic finds. M7 is the performance and polish pass. Prioritize items.
| + | |
| − | * Dani: '''Freeze Plan'''
| + | |
| − | ** Suggest a 2-day test pass (mon/tue) before the RC's, ie move 1 day from RC2 into M7
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | |
| − | '''Mar 10, 2010:''' - McQ, Jeff, Martin, John
| + | |
| − | * 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. | + | |
| − | ** 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/>
| + | |
| − | '''Mar 3, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ
| + | |
| − | * Martin: Remove org.eclipse.update.configurator and related bundles from SDK? As per {{bug|304505}} it makes Eclipse slow even when off.
| + | |
| − | ** Dani: Might be more than a packaging issue, somebody would have to invest
| + | |
| − | ** McQ: Should fix the Performance issue at any rate, regardless of other issues.
| + | |
| − | * John sick, Dani vacation next week.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | |
| − | '''Feb 24, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin, McQ
| + | |
| − | * Dani: Remove Java 7 support as a plan item due to (a) legal reasons and (b) Java 7 not being finished when Eclipse 3.6 ships
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <hr/>
| + | |
| − | '''Feb 17, 2010:''' - Martin, Dani, John
| + | |
| − | * Martin: {{bug|196337}} Pushing CDT Spawner into the Platform?
| + | |
| − | ** 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/>
| + | |
| − | '''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/>
| + | |
| − | '''Feb 03, 2010:''' - Dani, Martin
| + | |
| − | * Dani: {{Bug|301563}} - Fast project import from snapshot data
| + | |
| − | ** 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)
| + | |
| − | ** 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 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/>
| + | |
| − | '''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
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <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"
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <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
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <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 =
| + | |
| | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2009 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2009]] | | * [[Eclipse/PMC/Minutes 2009 | Archive of Meeting Minutes from 2009]] |
