Planning Council/October 05 2011
|Meeting Title:||Planning Council Conference Call|
|Date & Time:||Wednesday, October 05, 2011, at 1200 Eastern|
|Dial-in:||For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page.|
Members and Attendees
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
- Any? none
- Anything? none
Juno Plan and Requirements
I've updated our Planning Document with SR dates ... I consider the document "done for Juno" ... except for links (and content) for requirements and tracking. (That is, please proof read, especially dates for SRs).
Previous year's document on "eclipse web", moved to "eclipse wiki". I have edited, for clarity and organization. Only "requirement" I've changed, so far, it the one about 3.8 support (previously, was about 4.1 support).
In general, everyone thought "fine", but admitted had not had time to read carefully yet, so (I hope) still room for improvements to be made.
issue: is there a way to make clearer what is "normal Eclipse Foundation requirement" and what is "release train" requirement. I think it pretty obvious, if someone reads whole document, but TODO: will look at changing/adding to the 3 main headings to make clearer.
issue: is the "using Orbit bundles" an Eclipse Foundation requirement or train requirement? Answer: train. EF requires the CQ, but does not specify where to get it from. In general, should be easier for projects to get from Orbit, and avoids "inconsistent" bundles if things installed together in unexpected ways. So would be odd _not_ to get from Orbit, even for non-train release. There might be some exceptions for some projects (such as Virgo?) where "they have existing customers that expect the bundle to be in a certain form" ... similar to any "software migration" when existing customers exist. In theory, such exceptions should be "equally valid" whether on train, or not ... but there could be real "conflicts" that would preclude being in common repo.
issue: is the "must be signed" requirement from Eclipse Foundation or release train? Answer: train. Wayne clarified, if "signed or not" is release train, but Eclipse Foundation requires "if it is signed, and distributed from Eclipse, it must be signed by the Eclipse certificate".
none mentioned. But members will raise issues on planning council mailing list, or on "talk page" of wiki. (typos and small grammer fixes can just be made on wiki, directly, by any PC member). All PMC members are encouraged to "watch" that wiki page, to be aware of changes or discussions.
Checklist (aka tracker)
Is it worth someone investing the time to update this?
I have heard both ways, some like, some don't ... so I hope others have some strong opinions one way or the other?
Let's first decide what we want ... then we can discuss how to get it done, if desired.
November 2, 2011 (our regular "first Wednesday" meeting, at Noon Eastern).
- (Achim) This is the first day of EclipseCon Europe (clashing with the 10 Years Eclipse keynote and the 10th Birthday party)!
- Reschedule 11/2 meeting to November 9, 2011, at Noon (Eastern)?
- Subsequent, December meeting (back to 'first Wednesday'): December 7, 2011, at Noon (Eastern)