Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/March 07 2012"
(→Issues or Exceptions)
|Line 135:||Line 135:|
* Success? Feedback?
* Success? Feedback?
* Should our common "release repo" contain only the latest?
* Should our common "release repo" contain only the latest ? And moveolder stuff to different site? The site would be named something like .../releases/juno/or 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 if someone updated, and then wanted to revert , they also have to manually add the "complete" URL to their list of sites . the [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/p2-dev/msg04680.html msg chain on p2-dev list].
== Juno ==
== Juno ==
Revision as of 22:17, 5 March 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
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
- Success? Feedback?
- Issue to discuss and decide if we need a plan of action: p2 content metadata at SR2 is 3 times what it is at SR0. Should our common "release repo" contain only the latest code? And "move" older stuff to different site? The different site would be named something like .../releases/juno/complete or or something, 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 think if someone updated, and then wanted to revert or rollback the change, they might also have to manually add the ".../releases/juno/complete" URL to their list of sites (assuming p2 GC had cleaned off the old stuff. Please read the msg chain on p2-dev list. There is a trade off of function and performance and want to be sure everyone is aware of it and if anyone has any opinions on if we currently have the right choice.
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 approved on mailing list (as late for M4, but joining in M6).
- 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"?
- Fair (and desired?) to add "provide non-greedy repository" to requirements? 'Should' or 'must'? See Provide_optimized_p2_repository section. I propose:
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?
- 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).