Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Planning Council/April 06 2011

< Planning Council
Revision as of 10:56, 5 April 2011 by David (Talk | contribs) (Misc. References)

Introduction and Introductions

This is one of our regularly scheduled "first Wednesday" monthly meetings.


Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, April 06, 2011, at 1200 Eastern
Dial-in: For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page.

Members and Attendees

PMC (and Strategic) Reps
Chris Aniszczyk Technology (PMC)
John Arthorne Eclipse (PMC)
Oliver Cole Tptp (PMC)
Mik Kersten Mylyn (ALM) PMC
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC)
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC)
Adrian Mos SOA (PMC)
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC)
Thomas Watson Rt (PMC)
David Williams WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair)
Gary Xue Birt (PMC)
Strategic Reps
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer)
Stefan Daume Cloudsmith Inc.(Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer)
Kaloyan Raev SAP AG (Strategic Developer)
Pascal Rapicault Sonatype (Strategic Developer)
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer)
Christian Kurzke Motorola (Strategic Developer)
Achim Loerke BREDEX (Strategic Developer)
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed)
[no name] Nokia (Strategic Developer) X
[no name] CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) X
[no name] brox IT-Solutions GmbH (Strategic Developer) X

Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members we have not heard from in a year or so, 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
X = not expected


  • Welcome "new" member Doug Schaefer, at least new representative of Tools PMC.

Indigo Status

  • On track for M7?

Name Indigo +1

  • Name that release; Indigo+1. And the winner is ... Juno. Pending EMO Review.

And, as of Tuesday, April 5, it is still "pending review".

Eclipse 4.2 vs. 3.8

Next year, what's primary, what's secondary? Do we buy-in to the Eclipse Project's (implied) proposal?

How important is it to your project or to your strategic member company, that you represent, to use Eclipse 3.8 or Eclipse 4.2 as primary? Think of it on a 10 point scale (for discussion): 1 is very important to stay on 3.8 as primary, 5 is don't care, happy to go along with what others want/need, and 10 is very important to use 4.2 as the primary?

There was a general sense that if 4.x was ever going to be "real", we needed to make it primary. One project (besides Platform) was looking forward to it, and has (loose, informal) plans to exploit it, once primary. One member expressed concerned that since they depend on bundles/tools/add-ins that are not part of Eclipse (and not part of their company) that they have no control over ... so they might need to be on 3.x for that reason, and they wondered if we could have "both streams be primary". This wasn't thought to be realistic, since means "double the work" for everyone (to test both, if nothing else) but it was acknowledged that 3.x would remain to be very important. This called for a definition of "primary": a) EPP packages are built with it; b) projects build and test with it. It was mentioned that 4.x may not be getting much use by general population of Eclipse IDE users since most simply download EPP Packages.

While no final decision was made, my impression (or proposal) is that the plan should be to have 4.x be primary, and go down that path for Juno, unless or until some substantial reason is found not to. This would still allow 3.x to get as much or as little attention as desired, but we would not build EPP packages with it. It was asked, hypothetically, why couldn't we have both streams for EPP packages ... but, general fear was this would be confusing to community/users and more work for committers to "fully" support both, etc.).

It was also asked, "when would compatibility layer be removed, or no longer supported", and the answer was "never, it will always be there, always supported". That is, there is no expectation that Projects move to "native" 4.x APIs.

It was mentioned, that some thought the "message" needs work ... that the details in cross project note sounded "scary"?

Juno Dates

These are our proposed dates for Juno deliverables. They follow same "pattern" as previous years. Any issues? Discussion? If not, the milestone dates will be forthcoming, also following pattern from previous years.

Release: June 27, 2012 (fourth Wednesday)
SR1: September 28, 2012 (fourth Friday)
SR2: February 22, 2013 (fourth Friday)

Long Term Planning discussion

Note to self ... next year allow for two hour meeting :). We did not have time to chat about any of these longer term issues ... and will address them at our regular monthly meetings.

EclipseCon face-to-face is good time to discuss high level or long term issues. The following items are potential items to discuss ... please add any of your own. They can range from a thought or question, to a specific proposal. The purpose of this part of the meeting is not necessarily to decide or resolve any specific issues (there likely would not be time) but to make sure we are all, as a council, in agreement on our general course, what are most important issues to address, etc.

  • Review our Mission and recent retrospectives. In addition to the formal, documented mission, several other motivations tend to influence our efforts:
  • improve quality and consistency of Eclipse as a whole,
  • make things as easy as possible for committers (while meeting other goals),
  • improve "value" of Eclipse, by improving what adopters can adopt and providing what strategic members need.
  • Others ...?
  • How are we doing? Beside 'being on time' are we achieving the right quality? By helping projects focus on "minimum set" of items that are important for Eclipse as a whole?
  • Should we have "must do" items at all? Or, are they just recommendations?
  • Are the requirements about right? Too many? Too few?
  • Should we have requirement related to bug fix rate? Backlog reduction? unit test coverage?
  • How's the aggregation process? Would it be fair to ask for zipped p2 repositories for aggregation input?
  • Is the release tracking checklist on Portal worthwhile? Should we do away with it? Should we make it better? (Such as, there could be more "auto fill-in" ... such as from other portal data, more "testing" results would provide the main data for forms while projects would provide the documentation for deviations or exceptions).
  • Who is the audience(s)? (Projects, PMCs, Planning Council, Adopters).
  • Is yearly release (with two service releases) the right interval? Should maintenance be quarterly? Should releases be every other year? Or, perhaps, every other year be a LTS releases with "off" year having less maintenance emphasis?
  • Is there too much "pressure" or emphasis that everyone should be part of Simultaneous Release? Or, should it be one of our goals, that every project should be part of the Simultaneous Release? How would we describe or define who should, or who shouldn't?
  • Terminology improvements:
  • "Tracker" --> "Checklist"?
  • "Exceptions" --> "Deviations"?

Next Meeting

  • May 4, 2011 (our regular "first Wednesday" meeting, at Noon Eastern).


Indigo Requirements
Indigo Wiki page
Planning Council/Helios retrospective
Indigo Simultaneous Release
Planning Council Members
Simultaneous Release Roles and Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO

Back to the top