Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/March 07 2012"

(Indigo SR2)
(Issues or Exceptions)
Line 154: Line 154:
* Anyone "dropping out" that should be removed from aggregation build?
* Anyone "dropping out" that should be removed from aggregation build?
:: removed:  
:: removed following b3aggrcon files, for M6:  

Revision as of 22:38, 27 February 2012


Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, March 07, 2012, 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)
Mik Kersten Mylyn (ALM) PMC
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC)
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC)
Adrian Mos SOA (PMC)
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC)
Jesse McConnell Rt (PMC)
David Williams WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair) Y
Gary Xue Birt (PMC)
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed)
Strategic Reps
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer)
Stefan Daume Cloudsmith Inc.(Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer)
Kaloyan Raev SAP AG (Strategic Developer)
Igor Fedorenko Sonatype (Strategic Developer)
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer)
Christian Kurzke Motorola (Strategic Developer)
Achim Loerke BREDEX (Strategic Developer)
(PMC rep) Actuate (Strategic Developer) X
(PMC rep) IBM (Strategic Developer) X
[no name] TPTP (PMC) X
[no name] CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) X

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


  • Any?

Indigo SR2

  • Success? Feedback?
  • Should our common "release repo" contain only the latest? So at SR1 would save half of initial download time/amount and at SR2 would save 2/3rds of initial time/amount ... And move older stuff to different "site"? The site would be named something like .../releases/juno/permanent or .../releases/juno/complete and be simply a different composite (no duplication of actual artifacts). This site would not be "built in" to any update repo lists, but could be used by builds or others that needed "the old stuff. I guess if someone updated, and then wanted to revert, they'd also have to manually add the "complete" URL to their list of sites. Read the msg chain on p2-dev list.


Ready for M6?

Issues or Exceptions

  • Any issues? Everyone in? Any exceptions known?
Exceptions for projects not in M4, that still will to join Juno:
Virgo approved during 1/05 meeting (from rt PMC list, will be in M6)
BPEL approved on mailing list (as late for M4, but in M5)
Code Recommenders approved on mailing list (as late for M4, but in M5).
Koneki project ... joining M6 ... vote pending on mailing list.
  • Anyone "dropping out" that should be removed from aggregation build?
removed following b3aggrcon files, for M6:
  • What to do about Papyrus (and XWT dependency), both in general (bug 370974), and specific for this case.


  • anything to look at? In particular, plans specifying "planned support for 3.8 workbench"?

Other Business

Clarification on 01/23/2012: the repositories produced and contributed (for Juno and subsequent releases) must use p2 publishers that use greedy='false' by default. See bug 247099 and the p2 Publisher wiki for some history and details on this issue of greedy vs. non-greedy requirements.

It was affirmed this is important and ok to add to "must do" requirements. If, for some reason, a project can not, they can always file for an exception and we can assess impact then.
  • Project Priorities: Please review and be prepared to discuss this proposed "policy document" about project priorities.
Good discussion
Somme concern about "E" [now "F", after edits] ... might be some merit to it, but should be reworded to emphasize "abnormally high" amount of CQs, not simply "number of".
Suggested to mention LTS, as we do EPP.
Some tangential discussion to get more detailed about ... such as, are there ways still to simplify the process? Such as for "minor" updates to a package. Will continue at next meeting.
Is was suggested a "flow chart" was needed (like the IP process?) but a) I think that was made in jest, and b) think it will be "next year" before we could formalize into a heuristic.
Will discus more at March meeting, before considering the document "reviewed and approved" by Planning Council.
No overall objection to having PC state priorities, but some concern that a lot depends on the context in which the priorities were needed or used. Perhaps add a note these are priorities for producing a timely, predictable release train for adopters, products, and projects, and not that related to "importance" of a project, which could depend on factors such as innovation, demand, and others.

bug 361628 Not known yet, but some solution is likely needed, and that might require a "mass change" to not "packing" (and not signing?) nested jars.
  • Anything else?

Next Meeting

  • EclipseCon face-to-face meeting: Sunday, March 24, 2 - 4 local time (Eastern). Joint meeting with Arch. Council 4 - 5.
  • April 4, 2012 (our regular "first Wednesday" meeting, at Noon Eastern).


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

Back to the top