Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/April 02 2014"

Revision as of 14:33, 2 April 2014

Logistics

Members and Attendees

Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members or PMCs we have not heard from for a while, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.

Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record.
Y = Yes, attended
N = No, did not
R = regrets sent ahead of time
D = delegated
X = not expected

Announcements

• Reminder: deadlines and dates for Luna CQs, Reviews, etc.

• Reminder: Make sure you and your projects are aware of these proposals for "preferences and configuration" and "error reporting".

Previous meeting minutes

Let's discuss EclipseCon meeting and hear "trip reports" at end of meeting, if time allows.

EclipseCon face-to-face

Previous "first Wednesday" meeting

Kepler SR2

• Any issues?

There is one known, mysterious p2-update issue (discovered after 'release'): bug 427148

Sounds like no progress?

This was discussed at EclipseCon, by p2 team, and while good solution is still unknown, the reasons for it are understood, and (for some reason) doesn't seem to be reported that often as a problem, so I'll remove from future agenda items.

Kepler Plus

• Discuss/Decide Plan (if any) for "post Kepler patches" for Java 8 support.

I'm assuming everyone has been reading the thread on cross-project list titled: Kepler SR3 for Java 8?

For overall view, see https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists//cross-project-issues-dev/threads.html

I think this is the initial, quiet posting: https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists//cross-project-issues-dev/msg10388.html

And for some reason, heats up from there.

Thanks to Mike and Eclipse Foundation for the steps they are taking to raise awareness.

[retrospective] Overall, I feel I'm responsible for not putting on agenda months ago (but, I know we are all responsible for failure to plan) ... but it appears that Java 8 support caught some people by surprise -- and perhaps we should have thought to coordinate better?

• Brief reminder that some have said if our goal is to "wow casual users" that bugs such as bug 390889 may not allow that. That is, those not used to "EEs" and "toolchains" may be frustrated by some of the behavior, instead of wowed, and those that do understand EEs and tool chains are likely not burdened (too much) by using patches.
• How big is the problem? Who besides Platform (JDT/PDE) has "Java 8" support to patch into Kepler?

See bug 431427 - Who has "Java 8 Patch" for Kepler SR2?

Faceted Projects, from WTP

m2e (has already declined to participate, I believe).

ObjectTeam?

AspectJ?

Anyone else?

• What should "we" do (as being responsible for "overall Release Plans")?

• Alternatives I've heard mentioned:

• Do nothing, and projects can provide patch features from their own repositories, if they'd like.
• Kepler SR3, update sim rel repository, respin packages (gather community testing and feedback, and package maintainers testing).
• Some sort of new "R" release? that was apparently discussed at Arch. meeting at EclispeCon?
• In addition to EF's "summary pages", have a common repository that would contain all patches related to Java 8.

Note: I've seen where Wayne has already created "Market Place" items for the two known cases.

Is this equivalent to this "common patch" repo? (I think it is, mostly)?

• This would, presumably, hold patches for "new function" for Java 8, as well as anyone who had to fix something to enable running on Java 8 -- but not "fixes in general" (those should still come from project's own repositories).
• Would be "long lived" in the sense we would not delete it when Luna came out, but (I'd propose) would not have any further maintenance done on those patches (i.e., no attempt to make Kepler equal Luna support for Java 8). More of a sneak peek. Care is needed here not to give the wrong impression this was "Complete Java 8 support backported" to Kepler.
• This could be implemented as a snapshot: with "copies" of the patch repositories ... composting subdirectories, and remaining unchanged.

Or could be implemented floating: a composite repo pointing to the original patch repositories, so small tweaks or blocking defects fixed (eventually) and thus would be "in" the "Common Java 8 Patch Repository" automatically.

• Konstantin has proposed to "do all the work" to create new packages with patched features, if he had "a commitment to publish these packages at a reasonable location in eclipse.org main downloads area".
• Are there "third party" providers that make these sort of "Kepler Plus" packages? Such as EclispeSource via Yoxos? (And, I'm not asking for any confidential information!).

Be prepared for a roll-call vote! Not only "yea or nay" but, also if your projects (with PMC's blessing) had something for this repo, or if the strategic member you represent has any view point to share with the Planning Council. [As always, the decision is not made by "majority rules" (the decision is made by "status quo, if no consensus") ... but I do want to be sure to hear, equally, from everyone, with specifics.]

Results of discussion

Meeting went over by 30 minutes, so we could talk on this subject for an hour. We did decide a general direction, though some items still needed a bit more research:

• If Konstantin was willing to "do all the work", we saw no reason to object to making the "pre-patched" packages available.
• But, we did not want to give users the wrong impression that they were "on par" with a service release, since basically they will be untested (by community, and package maintainers) so wanted users to have to go to separate page, make an explicit choice, and know what they were getting, for example to make it clear these were "Kepler SR2 packages with Java 8 Support patches pre-applied". We would not want to call them "SR3" nor imply "Kepler with full Java 8 support".
• Follow-up Actions:

* Konstantin to send note to epp-dev list asking if any packages did not want to have such a patched package made available. (package maintainers would not have to test or sign-off on them, so at worse, they might get some bug reports they'd have to triage ... which hopefully would be a good thing as an early warning for Luna issue. And, of course, they could test as much as they'd like, but there would be no official "sign-off").

* Konstantin to send note to "m2e" asking if any inclusion required/desired for "wtp-m2e" in WTP.

* David to follow through with Eclipse Foundation, on how and where to place on "downloads". [Technically, EF "owns" downloads page, but they'd appreciate our input and suggestions.]

* The best suggestion I heard, came from Dani, where on the current "Java 8 support" page, to have a link to 1) Kepler SR2 packages with Java 8 support patches pre-applied and 2) a link to "Luna packages under development with Java 8 support" (this would be more relevant once M7 comes out ... but, until then, might point to Eclipse's download page for I-builds? Or, just say "(coming for Luna M7, available May 9th)".

* Would recommend a "related link" on normal download page, that went to "Java 8 support page".

• Non-action items we agreed on:

• No changes to Kepler Sim. Release repository.
• No "common patch repository" would be made available.
• If someone "not ready now", then, we would not go through this again in a month or two. (This includes, for example, if "JDT" comes out with an improved patch in weeks or months ahead, then users would still have to go to their specific site to install that update).

• Open Questions

• When should the "Java 8 Support page with patched packages" go away? When Luna comes out in June? Or, leave until September and Luna SR1? Seemed a slight leaning towards September ... but ... we did not really discuss enough.

Luna Planning

• Question/awareness of "Mac packaging". See bug 431116. My view it is too late to do for Luna -- anyone feel like it's so important we drop other things to do this? I assume could not be done in an "SR" (but, maybe?) ... which would mean "another year". Is there a reason to never do it? (i.e. doesn't fit someone's "use cases" or workflow?) Would that mean we need "two forms" of packaging available to satisfy everyone?

There was clear agreement this was not a Luna item, but most agreed it should be investigated for Mars. It might take reaction on some projects, such as if they don't specify "platform URLs" correctly (but use some sort of relative or absolute file paths) but no real blockers are currently known. Need to investigate if any side effects such as does using "dropins" break the signature ... or, does dropins need to be somewhere outside of Eclipse.apps", and similar unknowns.

Progress on Action Items

• Improved "aggregator examples/doc". (dw -- no progress).
• [Orbit plan (dw -- no formal progress)]

New Business

•  ?

Next Meeting

• May 7, 2014 - Regular First Wednesday Meeting

Reference

2013 EclipseCon face-to-face follow-through action items. For original meeting notes, see Planning_Council/March_24_2013 and for discussion leading to action items, see Planning_Council/April_10_2013. For last status update, see Planning_Council/May_8_2013.

Luna Wiki page

Kepler Wiki page

Planning Council/Kepler retrospective

Planning Council Members

Simultaneous Release Roles and Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO