Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/May 04 2011"

(Members and Attendees)
(Members and Attendees)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
| Chris Aniszczyk  
 
| Chris Aniszczyk  
 
| Technology (PMC)  
 
| Technology (PMC)  
| X (can't make it, on airplane)
+
| R (can't make it, on airplane)
 
|-
 
|-
 
| John Arthorne  
 
| John Arthorne  
 
| Eclipse (PMC)  
 
| Eclipse (PMC)  
|  
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Oliver Cole  
 
| Oliver Cole  
Line 35: Line 35:
 
| Mik Kersten  
 
| Mik Kersten  
 
| Mylyn (ALM) PMC  
 
| Mylyn (ALM) PMC  
|  
+
| R
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Brian Payton  
 
| Brian Payton  
 
| Datatools (PMC)  
 
| Datatools (PMC)  
|  
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Doug Schaefer
 
| Doug Schaefer
 
| Tools (PMC)  
 
| Tools (PMC)  
|
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Adrian Mos  
 
| Adrian Mos  
Line 55: Line 55:
 
| Thomas Watson  
 
| Thomas Watson  
 
| Rt (PMC)  
 
| Rt (PMC)  
|  
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| David Williams  
 
| David Williams  
 
| WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair)  
 
| WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair)  
|  
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Gary Xue  
 
| Gary Xue  
 
| Birt (PMC)  
 
| Birt (PMC)  
|
+
| Y
 
|}
 
|}
 
|
 
|
Line 79: Line 79:
 
| Neil Hauge  
 
| Neil Hauge  
 
| Oracle (Strategic Developer)  
 
| Oracle (Strategic Developer)  
|  
+
| R
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Kaloyan Raev  
 
| Kaloyan Raev  
 
| SAP AG (Strategic Developer)  
 
| SAP AG (Strategic Developer)  
|  
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Pascal Rapicault  
 
| Pascal Rapicault  
 
| Sonatype (Strategic Developer)  
 
| Sonatype (Strategic Developer)  
|
+
| Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Markus Knauer  
 
| Markus Knauer  
Line 99: Line 99:
 
| Achim Loerke  
 
| Achim Loerke  
 
| BREDEX (Strategic Developer)  
 
| BREDEX (Strategic Developer)  
|
+
| Y
 
|}
 
|}
 
|- ||width="100%" valign="top" ||
 
|- ||width="100%" valign="top" ||
Line 108: Line 108:
 
| Wayne Beaton  
 
| Wayne Beaton  
 
| Eclipse Foundation (appointed)  
 
| Eclipse Foundation (appointed)  
|
+
| R
 
|}
 
|}
 
|  
 
|  
Line 138: Line 138:
 
== Indigo Status  ==
 
== Indigo Status  ==
  
* On track for M7? and beyond?
+
* On track for M7? and beyond?
 +
 
 +
: ''No issues raised''
  
 
== Name Indigo +1  ==
 
== Name Indigo +1  ==
Line 149: Line 151:
  
 
I've moved "working plan" to [[Juno/Initial_Working_Plan]] for more public readings.
 
I've moved "working plan" to [[Juno/Initial_Working_Plan]] for more public readings.
 +
 +
:''Good discussion with good feedback (positive and constructive), though still not much known in terms of concrete plans of (sub) projects, so would be good to get that, if possible, by June. But, others were quick to point out, probably won't know much about Juno plans for months to come, not by next month.''
 +
 +
:''Concern was mentioned the proposed plan still reads with a little too much emphasis on 3.8, as though 4.2 wasn't ready yet.''
 +
 +
:''Perhaps wording could be improved ... perhaps to change emphasis to "state concrete plans for 3.8 early", supported or not, tested or not, respond to bugs or not, same function or not in both streams, etc., so adopters and downstream projects know what to expect? And to include better wording as to the purpose ... "The Planning Council encourages, as good Eclipse citizens, we should support adopters that can not make the transition completely to 4.x stream yet". Or similar (that is, explicitly, it is not because 4.2 is not ready). ''
 +
 +
:''It was mentioned, that some projects, such as the Platform's JDT, might end up "splitting streams", not even necessarily because of the split workbench, but they might tie down 3.8 as a maintenance-only stream, and put new feature/functions in 4.x only. They haven't decided that yet, just mentioned it as a possibility. [And, if anyone is wondering, the 3.x stream would contain the Java 7 support, since that's largely done already in 3.x stream.] It was pointed out this might have big impact on downstream projects, such as Web Tools ... unclear if downstream projects would have to split streams in such cases, or double-up on testing two version of JDT, as one example, and those downstream projects might have to pick one or the other to focus on (and it might not be 4.x). Put another way, if there is a potential split stream for every project, then the complexity would grow quite large. Maybe too large and complex to cover in our Simultaneous Release Plan? At some point, we might have to say, we as the Planning Council are only concerned with one stream, and only those that want to participate on that stream, ... and any other configuration is outside the scope of Planning Council's yearly release. Just a possibility.''
 +
 +
:''It was also mentioned that early testing, of Indigo stream and "a large IBM adopter product" has gone well on 4.x stream so the Platform team has high confidence in compatibility layer.''
 +
 +
:''There was, still, a general feeling that "4.2 as primary platform" would be a fine to great plan. More a question of what to do/say about 3.8. The council was reminded that 3.8 was deemed important by some members, not even necessarily for their own stuff, but sometimes there are dependencies or add-on tools that are outside Eclipse and outside members control that they still want to support or work with. I'm not sure we'll ever know concretely the degree of that? And, it is even unclear if that's a theoretical concern, or if there are already specific, known cases?''
  
 
== Juno Dates ==  
 
== Juno Dates ==  

Latest revision as of 12:17, 4 May 2011

Logistics

Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, May 04, 2011, 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) R (can't make it, on airplane)
John Arthorne Eclipse (PMC) Y
Oliver Cole Tptp (PMC) X
Mik Kersten Mylyn (ALM) PMC R
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC) Y
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC) Y
Adrian Mos SOA (PMC)
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC)
Thomas Watson Rt (PMC) Y
David Williams WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair) Y
Gary Xue Birt (PMC) Y
Strategic Reps
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer)
Stefan Daume Cloudsmith Inc.(Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer) R
Kaloyan Raev SAP AG (Strategic Developer) Y
Pascal Rapicault Sonatype (Strategic Developer) Y
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer)
Christian Kurzke Motorola (Strategic Developer)
Achim Loerke BREDEX (Strategic Developer) Y
Appointed
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed) R
Inactive
[no name] Nokia (Strategic Developer) X
[no name] CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) X
[no name] brox IT-Solutions GmbH (Strategic Developer) X

Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members we have not heard from in a year or so, 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
X = not expected

Announcements

  •  ?

Indigo Status

  • On track for M7? and beyond?
No issues raised

Name Indigo +1

  • FWIW, "Juno" has passed EMO sanity check and review, so its official.

Juno Release Planning

(See also notes from previous meeting.)

I've moved "working plan" to Juno/Initial_Working_Plan for more public readings.

Good discussion with good feedback (positive and constructive), though still not much known in terms of concrete plans of (sub) projects, so would be good to get that, if possible, by June. But, others were quick to point out, probably won't know much about Juno plans for months to come, not by next month.
Concern was mentioned the proposed plan still reads with a little too much emphasis on 3.8, as though 4.2 wasn't ready yet.
Perhaps wording could be improved ... perhaps to change emphasis to "state concrete plans for 3.8 early", supported or not, tested or not, respond to bugs or not, same function or not in both streams, etc., so adopters and downstream projects know what to expect? And to include better wording as to the purpose ... "The Planning Council encourages, as good Eclipse citizens, we should support adopters that can not make the transition completely to 4.x stream yet". Or similar (that is, explicitly, it is not because 4.2 is not ready).
It was mentioned, that some projects, such as the Platform's JDT, might end up "splitting streams", not even necessarily because of the split workbench, but they might tie down 3.8 as a maintenance-only stream, and put new feature/functions in 4.x only. They haven't decided that yet, just mentioned it as a possibility. [And, if anyone is wondering, the 3.x stream would contain the Java 7 support, since that's largely done already in 3.x stream.] It was pointed out this might have big impact on downstream projects, such as Web Tools ... unclear if downstream projects would have to split streams in such cases, or double-up on testing two version of JDT, as one example, and those downstream projects might have to pick one or the other to focus on (and it might not be 4.x). Put another way, if there is a potential split stream for every project, then the complexity would grow quite large. Maybe too large and complex to cover in our Simultaneous Release Plan? At some point, we might have to say, we as the Planning Council are only concerned with one stream, and only those that want to participate on that stream, ... and any other configuration is outside the scope of Planning Council's yearly release. Just a possibility.
It was also mentioned that early testing, of Indigo stream and "a large IBM adopter product" has gone well on 4.x stream so the Platform team has high confidence in compatibility layer.
There was, still, a general feeling that "4.2 as primary platform" would be a fine to great plan. More a question of what to do/say about 3.8. The council was reminded that 3.8 was deemed important by some members, not even necessarily for their own stuff, but sometimes there are dependencies or add-on tools that are outside Eclipse and outside members control that they still want to support or work with. I'm not sure we'll ever know concretely the degree of that? And, it is even unclear if that's a theoretical concern, or if there are already specific, known cases?

Juno Dates

Release: June 27, 2012 (fourth Wednesday)
SR1: September 28, 2012 (fourth Friday)
SR2: February 22, 2013 (fourth Friday)

TODO: compute milestone dates, similar to previous years.

Next Meeting

  • June 1, 2011 (our regular "first Wednesday" meeting, at Noon Eastern).

Reference

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