Jump to: navigation, search

Planning Council/March 24 2013

Logistics

Meeting Title: Planning Council Meeting
Date & Time: Sunday, 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

PMC (and Strategic) Reps
Chris Aniszczyk Technology (PMC) No
John Arthorne Eclipse (PMC) Yes
Steffen Pingel Mylyn (ALM) PMC No (not attending EclipseCon and Mik is not available on Sunday)
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC)
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC) Yes
Adrian Mos SOA (PMC) No (flight schedule)
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC) No
Ian Bull Rt (PMC) Yes
David Williams WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair) No.
Gary Xue Birt (PMC)
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed) Yes
Strategic Reps
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer) No
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer) Yes
Kaloyan Raev SAP AG (Strategic Developer) No (not attending EclipseCon)
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer) Yes
Achim Loerke (Markus Tiede) BREDEX (Strategic Developer) Yes
Shawn Pearce Google (Strategic Developer) Yes
(PMC rep) Actuate (Strategic Developer) X
(PMC rep) IBM (Strategic Developer) X
Inactive
[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

Juno SR2

  • 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.

Kepler

M6/M7

  • Issues?

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?


Next Meeting

  • April 3, 2013, "First Wednesday" Meeting

Reference

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