Planning Council/March 07 2012

From Eclipsepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Logistics

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) Y
John Arthorne Eclipse (PMC) Y
Mik Kersten Mylyn (ALM) PMC Y
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC) Y
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC) Y
Adrian Mos SOA (PMC)
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC)
Jesse McConnell Rt (PMC) Y
David Williams WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair) Y
Gary Xue Birt (PMC)
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed) Y
Strategic Reps
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer)
Stefan Daume Cloudsmith Inc.(Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer) Y
Kaloyan Raev SAP AG (Strategic Developer)
Igor Fedorenko Sonatype (Strategic Developer) Y
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer) Y
Christian Kurzke Motorola (Strategic Developer)
Achim Loerke BREDEX (Strategic Developer)
(PMC rep) Actuate (Strategic Developer) X
(PMC rep) IBM (Strategic Developer) X
Inactive
[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

Announcements

  • Welcome Igor Fedorenko as new Sonatype Strategic Developer Representative.
  • Any others?

Indigo SR2

  • 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.
Another solution might be to aggregate new stuff, with old, which would have added advantage of making sure all was compatible ... but, a) not sure it would be much smaller and b) requires all projects to do an "expert job" of versioning.
  • No bug yet, but I've gotten some email one might be open to "remove categories" from Indigo SR0 and SR1 repositories, to "complete" the fix for the problem caused by linuxtools changing feature IDs in SR2 (See bug 371302). As is, 6 features show up in "Linux tools" category, but 3 are for SR1 and 3 are for SR2 and they can not be all installed (all at once, that is, as most users would "pick them all" if they wanted Linux tools). While not exactly a blocking bug ... is it something that will last for years to come ... not to mention, I wonder if we should always only have one categorization for common repo? (discussed some in bug 314165.
Any issues/thoughts on this? Allowable? Desirable? Not?

Juno

Ready for M6?

  • Sounds like fair progress towards moving to "non greedy" publishers.

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 M5, but joining in M6).
Others?
  • Anyone "dropping out" that should be removed from aggregation build?
removed following b3aggrcon files, for M6:
dsdp-mjt
emf-teneo
emf-mint
m2t-jet
tools-sequoyah
stp
  • What to do about Papyrus (and XWT dependency), both in general (bug 370974), and specific for this case.
In general, can I say the Planning Council agrees with my summary conclusion in the bug 370974#c12?
Specifically, does the Planning Council agree this means Papyrus can not be in Sim Release? In fact, could not release at all, until this XWT issue is resolved.
They perhaps could use an "old" version of XWT? But, my guess is that very old release (which happened sort of erroneously) does not have about.html files, etc.
XWT could graduate/move to its own project and release from there ... but not much time left, and seems unlikely?
Keep in mind, one bad aspect of this is that Papyrus and some "unreleased" XWT bundles were in Indigo. We should have "caught the error" back then.
Does anyone suspect any other, similar cases?

Plans

  • anything to look at? In particular, plans specifying "planned support for 3.8 workbench"?
  • The proposal (to summarize, assuming no communication problems) was for the "bits" in Eclipse Classic, and the Juno repository to be provided by the Eclipse releng team.
But, that the bits used in EPP (for the platform/SDK bundles) come from the CBI builds, and the rest come from common repository.
  • Issue one: this means there would be two versions of platform bundles "in the wild" for the Juno release.
Either with same version and qualifiers, but (probably slightly different content), or different qualifiers but maybe same content ... either case leading to chaos (IMHO).
I think "updates" and "what would adopter's customer's end up with" are huge problems for Eclipse, in these cases.
  • Issue two, while is is true, Eclipse is open source, and "people can do with it what they want", I think it is entirely up to the EPP project what they do and how they do it (not "CBI") and such a large technical/process change should get plenty of discussion with EPP Project (and, probably their PMC ... is this something they think is a good idea?)
  • Issue three, it seems all this is happening "last minute" instead of the proven "Eclipse way" of producing milestones, making steady, incremental progress towards a release.
  • Issue four, would projects still want to be in EPP, if they knew bits would be different than if they "built their own"?
  • Issue five, I think the Planning Council is in charge of "the release plan" (since, it effects all top-level projects and PMCs and Strategic Members) so I think we are obligated to make a statement on this issue.
  • If not obvious, I think we all want to be supportive of CBI and the LTS efforts, but ... even if bundles are planned/considered to be identical, then why have two versions of them? Part of the answer is to make very rapid progress in CBI and LTS. Again ... I think we all support that rapid progress, but I'd prefer a plan that had same bits, all around. Perhaps SR1?
  • Any thoughts? Suggestions for what our Planning Council statement should be? Can we make a concrete statement or recommendation?

Other Business

  • Project Priorities: Please review and be prepared to discuss this proposed "policy document" about project priorities.
One issue: should we mention LTS? Technically ... it is not in our mission or scope.
Are we in agreement these can be published a "priorities from Planning Council's point of view" to begin "socializing" the idea?
  • Will Java pack200 issue bug 361628 need action? Is a fix possible? It will not literally be a problem if everyone published both jar.pack.gz files and jars, but would be inefficient (ending up with "failures" with pack.gz files, and then downloading jars if using Java 7). Keep in mind, we have decided in the past that we should always publish both *.jar and *.jar.pack.gz files ... so, no change in policy for Sim. Release.
  • Anything else?

Next Meeting

  • EclipseCon face-to-face meeting: Sunday, March 24, 2 - 4 local time (Eastern). Joint meeting with Arch. Council 4 - 5.
Agenda will be developed soon, but good time to discuss Kepler and other "big picture" items.
  • April 4, 2012 (our regular "first Wednesday" meeting, at Noon Eastern).

Reference

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