Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/May 20 2009"

(5/20)
 
(Attendees)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
|Chris Aniszczyk ||  
 
|Chris Aniszczyk ||  
 
|-
 
|-
|Cedric Brun ||  
+
|Cedric Brun || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Oliver Cole ||  
+
|Oliver Cole || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Stefan Daume ||  
+
|Stefan Daume || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Brian Fitzpatrick ||  
+
|Brian Fitzpatrick || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Bjorn Freeman-Benson ||  
+
|Wayne Beaton || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Doug Gaff ||  
+
|Doug Gaff || R
 
|-
 
|-
|Neil Hauge ||  
+
|Neil Hauge || Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Mika Hoikkala ||  
 
|Mika Hoikkala ||  
 
|-
 
|-
|Anthony Hunter ||
+
|Anthony Hunter || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Oisin Hurley ||  
+
|Oisin Hurley || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Markus Knauer ||  
+
|Markus Knauer || Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Christian Kurzke ||  
 
|Christian Kurzke ||  
 
|-
 
|-
|Gary ||  
+
|Gary Xue || Y
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Ed Merks ||  
 
|Ed Merks ||  
Line 54: Line 54:
 
|Georg Schmidt ||  
 
|Georg Schmidt ||  
 
|-
 
|-
|Karsten Schmidt ||  
+
|Karsten Schmidt || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|Thomas Watson ||  
+
|Kaloyan Raev || Y
 
|-
 
|-
|David Williams ||  
+
|Thomas Watson || Y
 +
|-
 +
|David Williams || Y
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 65: Line 67:
 
==Topics==
 
==Topics==
  
* Status of Naming next year's release (Thanks Oliver).  
+
* Conclude Naming next year's release (Thanks Oliver).  
 
:: See the [http://www.doodle.com/fqkqrc6nqzfby7ni doodle poll]
 
:: See the [http://www.doodle.com/fqkqrc6nqzfby7ni doodle poll]
:: Vote to conclude on May 15.  
+
:: And especially last few comments in [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=271054 bug 271054]
:: Let's discuss before final decision:  
+
 
 +
::: Helios. The runner up was Halley. (in case EMO Legal review finds issue with Helios).
  
* Build update
+
* PC Decision on Categories in Discovery Site
:: Transitioned to "BuckyBuilder" (Thanks Thomas)
+
:: Business Intelligence: See [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=275392 bug 275392]
:: Is now (partially) a composite site (implies more responsibility/coordination from 'Eclipse Platform').  
+
:: "New" requirement to use Java 5 for running pack200?  
+
  
* Do we need a sign-off page?
+
::: PC decide B I R C was ok (best we could do, this year, but subject to change next year, as they all are).
:: Or just expect people to post exceptions or delays?
+
  
* See [[Simultaneous_Release_Roles]] and [[Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO]]
+
:: DSDP Category name change: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=277006 bug 277006]
  
* Review [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/galileo_status.php project status] and determine actions to take.
+
::: PC didn't like the exact proposal. Will comment in bug, and await reply.  
:: Are you happy with "must do" compliance?
+
:: Happy with what's building?
+
::: Swordfish should be in today.
+
::: Some haven't been installable (from update site, such as PHP).  
+
  
* Previous Meeting Notes
+
::: Good, brief discussion on this topic in general, for next year. May want to be more creative and consider multilevel categories, wizards that could help narrow interests (and "include source" checkbox choice), should also better represent _the_ packages that are available from EPP (e.g. "RCP Developer").
  
**Accessibility
+
* PC Position on off-cycle releases and use of discovery site (and EPP)? This came up in discussions about a Pulsar package.  
:: Karsten (re) raised concern about the accessibility issue, and that so many of that "should do" items had no comment or status.  
+
:: ACTION: I offered to send reminder to cross-project list. (done)
+
  
** Babel's deadlines
+
:: Conclusion: we do not want to support off-cycle releases. But with following compromise: If a project still met all the normal "release criteria" set forth as must-do's by PC then they could introduce something new during SR1 or SR2 (that is SR1 and SR2 can have more than service, if important, and must-do criteria met). The reason for not supporting things off cycle was a. it is more work to support it, b. there is no opportunity for "simultaneous release" testing, c. it would dilute the meaning of "simultaneous release".
:: Tom asked about Babel's expectations and deadlines.  
+
:: ACTION: Since none of us knew, Tom will ask on Babel's newsgroup, and get back to Planning Council.  
+
* Review [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/galileo_status.php project status] and determine actions to take.  
:: Any news?  
+
:: Are we happy with "must do" compliance?  
 +
:: Judging from items not marked, it appears these are the projects of worst quality (or, worst adopter readiness?):
  
** Weekly build meetings?
+
:::EMFT 20
:: When, How, Who to have bi-weekly "build team" meetings?
+
:::PDT  15
:: Oisin may follow-up with note to cross-project list with a a proposal.
+
:::CDT  14
:: Any news? need?  
+
:::MAT  13
 +
:::MDT  10
 +
 
 +
* RC1 update
 +
:: Done yet?  
  
 
* Next Meeting
 
* Next Meeting
  
:: Regularly scheduled one on first wed. of June
+
:: Regularly scheduled one on first Wednesday of Month: June 3, 12 Noon Eastern
:: Do we need one before, say May 20th?
+
 
 +
:: Upcoming topics
 +
:::Frequency and dates of maintenance builds
 +
:::Dates for next year's project plans
 +
::::Wayne volunteer to check how done in past, and if Board or EMOD had any critera (and the answer was "no", up to PC).
 +
:::Build schedule for next year (start with M1)
  
 
==Reference Links==
 
==Reference Links==
Line 112: Line 116:
  
 
[http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/council.php#planning Planning Council Members]
 
[http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/council.php#planning Planning Council Members]
 +
 +
[[Simultaneous_Release_Roles]] and [[Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO]]

Latest revision as of 05:10, 24 August 2009

Logistics

Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, May 20 2009, at 1600 UTC / 0900 SFO / 1200 NYC / 1700 London / 1800 Berlin
Dial-in: For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page.

Attendees

Chris Aniszczyk
Cedric Brun Y
Oliver Cole Y
Stefan Daume Y
Brian Fitzpatrick Y
Wayne Beaton Y
Doug Gaff R
Neil Hauge Y
Mika Hoikkala
Anthony Hunter Y
Oisin Hurley Y
Markus Knauer Y
Christian Kurzke
Gary Xue Y
Ed Merks
Mike Milinkovich
Philippe Mulet
James Saliba
Georg Schmidt
Karsten Schmidt Y
Kaloyan Raev Y
Thomas Watson Y
David Williams Y

Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record.

Topics

  • Conclude Naming next year's release (Thanks Oliver).
See the doodle poll
And especially last few comments in bug 271054
Helios. The runner up was Halley. (in case EMO Legal review finds issue with Helios).
  • PC Decision on Categories in Discovery Site
Business Intelligence: See bug 275392
PC decide B I R C was ok (best we could do, this year, but subject to change next year, as they all are).
DSDP Category name change: bug 277006
PC didn't like the exact proposal. Will comment in bug, and await reply.
Good, brief discussion on this topic in general, for next year. May want to be more creative and consider multilevel categories, wizards that could help narrow interests (and "include source" checkbox choice), should also better represent _the_ packages that are available from EPP (e.g. "RCP Developer").
  • PC Position on off-cycle releases and use of discovery site (and EPP)? This came up in discussions about a Pulsar package.
Conclusion: we do not want to support off-cycle releases. But with following compromise: If a project still met all the normal "release criteria" set forth as must-do's by PC then they could introduce something new during SR1 or SR2 (that is SR1 and SR2 can have more than service, if important, and must-do criteria met). The reason for not supporting things off cycle was a. it is more work to support it, b. there is no opportunity for "simultaneous release" testing, c. it would dilute the meaning of "simultaneous release".
Are we happy with "must do" compliance?
Judging from items not marked, it appears these are the projects of worst quality (or, worst adopter readiness?):
EMFT 20
PDT 15
CDT 14
MAT 13
MDT 10
  • RC1 update
Done yet?
  • Next Meeting
Regularly scheduled one on first Wednesday of Month: June 3, 12 Noon Eastern
Upcoming topics
Frequency and dates of maintenance builds
Dates for next year's project plans
Wayne volunteer to check how done in past, and if Board or EMOD had any critera (and the answer was "no", up to PC).
Build schedule for next year (start with M1)

Reference Links

Galileo Simultaneous Release

Planning Council Members

Simultaneous_Release_Roles and Simultaneous_Release_Roles/EMO

Back to the top