Jump to: navigation, search

Planning Council/March 03 2010

< Planning Council
Revision as of 13:50, 3 March 2010 by David williams.us.ibm.com (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Logistics

Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, March 03, 2010, at 1700 UTC / 0900 SFO / 1200 NYC / 1700 London / 1800 Berlin
Dial-in: For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page.

Attendees

PMC (and Strategic) Reps

Chris Aniszczyk Technology (PMC) Y
John Arthorne Eclipse (PMC) R
Oliver Cole Tptp (PMC) Y
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC) Y
Doug Gaff ??? Dsdp (PMC)
Anthony Hunter Tools (PMC) Y
Oisin Hurley Stp (PMC) R
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC) Y
Thomas Watson Rt (PMC) Y
David Williams WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair) Y
Gary Xue Birt (PMC) Y

Strategic Reps

Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer) Y
Stefan Daume Cloudsmith Inc.(Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer) Y
Kaloyan Raev SAP AG (Strategic Developer) R
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer) R
Christian Kurzke Motorola (Strategic Developer)  

Appointed

Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed)  
Mike Milinkovich Eclipse Foundation (appointed)


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

Inactive

 ? Nokia (Strategic Developer) X
 ? CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) X
 ? 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.


Galileo

Assessment of SR2

Potential (near?) negative impact on adopters:

Some "late"
Modeling EMF ?CDO? missed deadline
DTP final zips late (sort of)?
Not all projects had maintenance/rebuilds (do we need to explicitly "plan" for that?)
EclipseLink (thought they would not need an SR2, but after all decided they will need maintenance ... in March or so! ... apparently, this team has pattern of creating their service release shortly after the rest of us release?)
PDT (PHP Tools) didn't have an SR2, but I saw one user on mailing list saying "he sure thought they needed one, based on important fixes made in Helios, that could be back ported ... its a long time to wait" (I've no idea if he was accurate ... just raising as an example that caught my attention).
Potential for some Orbit Jars to not be consistent in some packages vs. others, if not everyone re-builds or re-packages. (Just one or two substantial changes, this time, but all others changed signatures).
There were nearly equal numbers of projects that supplied service, vs. those that did not
service released in SR2
  1. actf.build
  2. birt.build
  3. cdt.build
  4. dltk.build
  5. dsdp-tm.build
  6. dtp.build
  7. ecf.build
  8. eclipselink.build
  9. ep.build
  10. epp-udc.build
  11. equinox.build
  12. gef.build
  13. gmf.build
  14. jwt.build
  15. m2m-atl.build
  16. m2t-jet.build
  17. mylyn.build
  18. rap.build
  19. stp.build
  20. subversive.build
  21. swordfish.build
  22. tptp.build
  23. webtools.build
no service released with SR2
  1. buckminster.build
  2. dsdp-tm.build
  3. emf-cdo.build
  4. emf-compare.build
  5. emf-emf.build
  6. emf-net4j.build
  7. emf-teneo.build
  8. emf-transaction.build
  9. emft-ecoretools.build
  10. emft-mint.build
  11. emft-mwe.build
  12. m2m-qvtoml.build
  13. m2t-xpand.build
  14. mat.build
  15. mdt-ocl.build
  16. mdt-uml2.build
  17. mdt-uml2tools.build
  18. mdt-xsd.build
  19. pdt.build
  20. riena.build
  21. tmf-xtext.build


Any other concerns with SR2?

Good things:

Maintained "old" content (SR1) in repository (in addition to new)
Rolled out P2 artifacts before P2 metadata (instead of artifacts and metadata visible at same time)
Any other positive things with SR2 to document? [mk - it went smoother than every other release before.]

Notes from meeting: No particular concerns, except Anthony and Ed both commented that in the cases they were aware of, "no service release" was just because there wasn't any bugs, that had been requested for that service release. Even GEF was almost "no service" with only one bug fixed. GMF, on the other hand, had many requests.

Helios

I want to recommend "guidelines" that may become "required" next year (but not for Helios) but some, such as webtools, may move to it this release:
... structure of .../<project>/repository/<release>/[SRn | datetimestamp]/
... naming in feature URL would be (only) .../<project>/repository/<release>/
where 'project' is high level project (Top level? except Tools and Technology? ... or request even Tools and Technology to have central one, or at least part of name and/or structure?
Such as /tools/gef/repository/helios/ ?
where 'release' is Yearly Release Name (e.g. 'helios') ... only for those in yearly release. Others would need to use some version number. (reserving yearly release name, for only those in yearly release).
  • Also, do we agree that projects in release train can omit feature update URL? if they would like to? (since the common release repository URL is built into platform). We need less "repository locations" clutter. Risk is it would be a little harder to provide off-cycle maintenance (users would need to add project location to their list) for those projects deciding not to provide their own URL. They would, still, need to provide their own repository (since that's where central one is created from) just not name it in the feature.xml.

Notes from meeting: General agreement this was a good thing to do, and dw to write up for further review and/or (optional) adoption.

Cross-Project Teams

Aggregation

Planning Council/Cross Project Teams/Aggregation

Previously mentioned planned meeting didn't happen ... and after some email exchanges, nothing concrete seemed needed right away, except ....

We will encourage people to test Galileo to Helios upgrade, but not do anything to enable that to be "automatic". See or comment in bug bug 303583.

New question: Should we require projects to specify version numbers in .build file?

Technically, if omitted, then simply "highest" one is retrieved from repository. That can be good, easier, but a little less error checking and record of what was intended.

Tracking progress and compliance

Planning Council/Cross Project Teams/Tracking

Review readiness of current version on Portal

Comments? Ok to move forward? Does anyone prefer Plan B or Plan C?

Notes from meeting: Council thought it was good and near ready. A few might review a bit more and have comments later, to be mailed to planning list. Tom and Oliver had suggestions for improvements, which I captured as follows, and forwarded to Gabe:

1. Make the three main sections look more like sections (as it is, sort of looks like just another item).

For example, perhaps indent the items 3 or 5 spaces from left and right margins (leaving the headings and their text as they are, flush with margins)? Also, perhaps use larger font for the three section "headings"?

2. At the very top, perhaps even above the "tracking project" line, put some explanation, and handy links.

Here's what I think it should be:

This form is to track progress towards the yearly <a href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Helios/Simultaneous_Release_Plan">Simultaneous Release</a>, for those project that have stated their intent and agreement to be part of that release. Projects (usually the Project Lead) should document their progress here, on meeting the <a href="http://www.eclipse.org/helios/planning/EclipseSimultaneousRelease.php">requirements for the Simultaneous Release</a>. Questions on how to complete the form can be asked on the <a href="mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org">cross-project list</a>. Suggestions for improving the form or process (or cross-project bugs) can be opened on the <a href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Community;component=Cross-Project">cross-project bugs component</a>. Bugs on this form itself can be opened on the <a href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Community;component=Portal">Foundation Portal component</a>.

ToDo Items

  • provide concrete instructions for (new) license-consistency requirement ... before M6? (John Arthorne).
  • coordinate community input for next year's name (Oliver says last year this was started "shortly before EclipseCon" ... so now's the time!.

Other business

  • Reminder: face-face EclipseCon meeting 2:00 to 3:00 (local time) on the Sunday before EclispeCon (3/21) in the Bayshore room of the Hyatt Santa Clara.
  • Followed by "joint meeting" with other councils.

Next Meeting

EclispeCon 3/21 2:00 PM Pacific Time, in the Bayshore room of the Hyatt Santa Clara
April 7, Wednesday, Noon Eastern Time.

Reference

Helios Simultaneous Release

Planning Council Members

Simultaneous Release Roles and Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO