Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/October 07 2015"

m (/* Neon Planning)
m (/* Neon Planning)
Line 196: Line 196:
 
::: Apparently there have been cases of users getting "mixed" installs, because reference repositories are sometimes very broad. [I hope I've captured that issue correctly, I was not there, so please correct if I read it wrong.]
 
::: Apparently there have been cases of users getting "mixed" installs, because reference repositories are sometimes very broad. [I hope I've captured that issue correctly, I was not there, so please correct if I read it wrong.]
 
: Does Oomph solve this problem at all? Does it have a possible solution?  
 
: Does Oomph solve this problem at all? Does it have a possible solution?  
 +
 +
* Rolling "release" issue
 +
 +
:* Upon re-reading, that was another topic discussed at Arch. Council.
 +
:* Probably several ways to solve ... if it is a real issue? ... and, if I understood what the "end goal" was better?
 +
  
 
* - [ACTION ITEM from previous meeting] Wayne took as a "to do" item, to check with IP staff if a CQ deadline should be set for update releases.  
 
* - [ACTION ITEM from previous meeting] Wayne took as a "to do" item, to check with IP staff if a CQ deadline should be set for update releases.  

Revision as of 12:01, 7 October 2015

Logistics

Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, September 2, 2015, at 1200 Noon Eastern
Dial in: (See Asterisk service for complete details on SIP, potential new numbers, phone mute commands, etc.)

Phone Numbers: (Check Asterisk/Numbers for more or current phone numbers.)

For all phone lines: Participant conference extension: 710 then enter pin 35498
  • Ottawa (local call in Ottawa) 1-613-454-1403
  • North America (toll free) 1-866-569-4992
  • Germany (local call anywhere in Germany) +49-692-2224-6059
  • France (local call anywhere in France) +33-17-070-8535
  • UK (toll free) 0800-033-7806
  • Switzerland (local call anywhere in Switzerland) +41-44-580-2115
  • SIP clients:
call 710@asterisk.eclipse.org, then enter pin 35498.

Members and Attendees

PMC (and Strategic) Reps
John Arthorne (occasional) Cloud (PMC)
Chris Aniszczyk Technology (PMC)
Dani Megert Eclipse (PMC)
Sam Davis Mylyn (ALM) PMC
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC)
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC)
Adrian Mos (Marc Dutoo ) SOA (PMC)
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC)
Ian Bull Rt (PMC)
Chuck Bridgham WTP (PMC)
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed)
David Williams (appointed Chair)
Strategic Reps
Nick Boldt Redhat (Strategic Developer)
Remi Schnekenburger CEA List (Strategic Developer)
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer)
Stephan Merker SAP AG (Strategic Developer)
Markus Knauer Innoopract (Strategic Developer)
Rajeev Dayal Google (Strategic Developer)
(PMC rep) Actuate (Strategic Developer) X
(PMC rep) IBM (Strategic Developer) X
Inactive
[no name] CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) X
[no name] Birt (PMC) 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

Announcements

  • Welcome Sam Davis as new (official) PC rep from Mylyn (ALM) PMC; and thanks to Steffen Pingel for his years of service.

Previous meeting minutes

  • Review previous meeting minutes if you'd like. That is, review them before meeting, but if questions or issues with previous minutes, this would be a good time to bring them up.

Mars Planning

  • Mini Mars.1 retrospective:
- Some (committers) expressed ?surprise? that new projects could "join train". (I think "surprise" is the right word?)
- Doug has mentioned "we need to socialize the changing rules better" (Anyone know how, and able, to do that?)
- The respin
- Seemed a borderline case, to me. But, in the end, glad we did. Not just for workspace dialog issue, but also improved repo and packages to include only one (latest) version of com.jcraft.jsch. That in turn was "lucky", since Eclipse.org infrastructure upgraded and quietly included only "latest" Ciphers. Unclear if really only needs to be one, like a singleton, but there have been reports of "uses constraints violations", when both present.
- Then there was (some) surprise about the "one week slip" in releasing.
-- Of all "lessons learned", I like the idea of "if we rebuild during quiet week, then automatic one week slip in schedule".
-- Not only makes gives time for others to re-test, or adopters to rebuild, but makes it easier for me and Markus.
-- I plan to codify this practice in the Sim. Release Plan. Any objections? See addition to Mars Plan.
- As a side observation, the workspace dialog bug was introduced by a code change on June 6, which (partially) validates our caution by allowing Buildship to join in June. The bug had been reported earlier (than last week of Mars.1) but a fix was not known before then. Thanks again to Tom Watson for providing the correct fix ... otherwise, would have still be a problem (albeit rarer) if we had re-spun with originally proposed fix.

Neon Planning

  • - Neon's 2016 Milestone Dates (M5, M6, M7, and RCs)
See Neon's Schedule
Similar to last year (EclipseCon is similar dates, as last year -- but on East Coast again! Yeah! :)
Do we all agree with those dates? (That is, can we declare them now official?)
  • - Neon's Update Release Dates
At our last meeting it was decided to have 3 update releases (instead of current 2), and have them approximately equally spaced:
June (3) September (3) December (3) March [(3) June]
* I propose we plan the availability of Update Releases to be the same as the end of specific Neon+1 milestones.
- That would be M2, M4, and M6. (See Neon's schedule, for a rough idea of when Neon+1 milestones would be.
- This has one obvious advantage: for projects that are essentially working on one stream only (such as fixes-only, especially for first Update Release), they can submit same content to the Update Release, and the Milestones stream.
- Also, looking at schedule, the December "match up" seems a no brainer ... not much other time to do it?
- M6 matching the last Update Release is nice, since gives "clear focus" for M7 and the end-game of Neon+1.
- And Neon.1 matching M2 completes the rhythm.
- From those "end dates" we would count backwards, to establish the same RC pattern we have now.
- I've not looked closely, but believe the first "warmup" RC, would be same or near the previous Neon+1 milestone. (one quiet week, plus 3 one week RCs, plus 1 two week RC equals 6 weeks) [Is that good or bad? Do we still need that early warm up RC? (I'm inclined to say yes, if for nothing else, "new projects" joining train, and for those adding minor feature updates -- we still want a relatively early warm-up for them, similar to a update release milestone).
  • Can we say now we all agree with these dates? (I suggest "official vote" for next meeting, but if disagreement or concerns, speak up now!)
  • Has everyone had a chance to talk to their PMCs, Projects, or Strategic Members they represent? (Please do, we need, and want, complete buy-in from all stack holders -- that is, not so much what we dictate, as it is what they want ... or, at least tolerate).
  • Off-cycle "hot fix" releases/patches.
One proposal: have all features in EPP packages be "root features" and establish a procedure of adding new code to the Sim. Release repository "at any time" -- for "hot fixes" only ... after review/approval by Planning Council?
AND, change p2? to "not allow" addition of reference repositories during feature installs.
(Would likely have to be a "product preference" since some adopters may depend on that feature, but EPP could "set" the preference).
Easy for me to say "change p2" :) but ... who would do the work?
This "reference repositories issue" was a discussed as a concern at Architecture Council
Apparently there have been cases of users getting "mixed" installs, because reference repositories are sometimes very broad. [I hope I've captured that issue correctly, I was not there, so please correct if I read it wrong.]
Does Oomph solve this problem at all? Does it have a possible solution?
  • Rolling "release" issue
  • Upon re-reading, that was another topic discussed at Arch. Council.
  • Probably several ways to solve ... if it is a real issue? ... and, if I understood what the "end goal" was better?


  • - [ACTION ITEM from previous meeting] Wayne took as a "to do" item, to check with IP staff if a CQ deadline should be set for update releases.
- Cons (probably not needed): there are few new ones, every one knows the limits
- Pros (would be helpful): helps set expectations of committers and new contributors on how much can be done, by when.
(Though, still varies a lot, if "all new" large contribution, vs. piggy back CQ)

New Business

  •  ?

Next Meeting

  • November 4, 2015 - Regular First Wednesday Meeting

Reference

2013 EclipseCon face-to-face follow-through action items. For original meeting notes, see Planning_Council/March_24_2013 and for discussion leading to action items, see Planning_Council/April_10_2013. For last status update, see Planning_Council/May_8_2013.
Mars Wiki page
Planning Council Members
Simultaneous Release Roles and Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO

Back to the top