Planning Council/March 24 2013
|Meeting Title:||Planning Council Meeting|
|Date & Time:||Wednesday, March 24, 2013, at 1400 Eastern|
|Face-to-Face. No Dial-in.|| Room: South End, on the Plaza Level (top floor) of the World Trade Center. |
Note: MeetGreen will be at the venue setting up registration in case you need anything.
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
- Any post-release feedback?
- Our current policy statement on "new releases" joining a SR maintenance release is in our Policy FAQs. Eventually that's the part we'll want to "tighten up". Must balance flexibility (agility) with stability. Perhaps something similar to "The new release must be in RC1 builds for the SR, must have released one month prior to that RC1, and must be willing/able to test and provide a quick maintenance release if last minute problems found."
- Notes from previous meeting:
- Seemed reasonable to everyone that, if we keep our current policy, "minor updates must be in fully in by RC1" or else too late to join.
- Should we even allow minor updates at all? What do adopters expect/want from SR releases? Pure maintenance, or new features too?
- We don't say so, but "no major changes allowed" seems reasonable. That is, no API breaking changes. Sometime, "version ranges", even minor, in theory could be a "breaking change" (though, not exactly API).
- Should whether or not in EPP packages be part of one of the factors? Seems that's where most stability is important/expected, since those users don't have a "choice" to move up to a particular version, they get it automatically.
- As an aside, even Mylyn no longer does minor updates in SRs ... they've stabilized enough not to need it, and recognize they are a core piece of several EPP packages, so more important to be stable.
EclipseCon face-to-face Long Term Planning
- Agenda topics (mentioned in previous meeting, feel free to add)
- Decide SR Policy.
- Should Rt have their own "repo"? Their own Sim Rel Rules? How can the value to them be increased?
- What relationship is there (should there be) between OSGi/p2 common repo and Maven/Maven Repos?
- April 3, 2013, "First Wednesday" Meeting