Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search


< Eclipse
Revision as of 03:58, 31 March 2011 by Daniel (Talk | contribs) (Meeting Minutes)


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

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

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 PMC mailing list note.

March 9, 2011: - John, McQ

  • Ongoing discussion of direction for 2012 release train. Will continue discussion in email to ensure all PMC members are involved.

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:

  • 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?

February 16, 2011:

February 9, 2011: - McQ, John, Dani, Martin

  • Dani - Builder bug: Theoretically, the builder bug can cause bad binaries shipped from
    • But switching the builder now could have other consequences. Most people likely use the 3.6.0 or 3.6.1 builder
    • Platform uses the 3.6.1 builder. Bug appeared in 3.6.0
    • McQ thinks we should recommend using the new builder - John: can never know whether a problematic code construct is there or not
    • 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
    • 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

February 2, 2011: - Canceled (no topics)

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

January 19, 2011: - McQ, John, Jeff, Dani, Martin

  • Jeff will be unavailable for meeting next 6-7 weeks
  • John: How do we interpret "under the direction of the PMC" in Eclipse legal process?
    • McQ: Not about approval, but about PMC being aware
    • 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.
    • 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.

January 12, 2011: -

January 5, 2011: - McQ, John, Dani, Jeff, Martin

  • Dani: Component Lead progress? - Portal still doesn't have the correct list of components


Back to the top