Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Planning Council Agenda"

(Agenda)
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page is where we can gather the agenda for the next [http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/council.php#planning Eclipse Planning Council] face-to-face.
+
This page was used to gather input for the 2007 [http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/council.php#planning Eclipse Planning Council] face-to-face meeting. For more current meeting agendas and minutes, see the main [[Planning Council]] page.
  
 
=Location=
 
=Location=
The next face-to-face will be at [http://www.eclipseworld.net/ EclipseWorld] in Reston, VA. We will meet in afternoon of Tuesday November 6th at the conference hotel the [http://www.eclipseworld.net/hotel.htm Hyatt Regency Reston].
+
The next face-to-face will be at [http://www.eclipsecon.org/ EclipseCon] in Santa Clara, CA on Sunday, March 16th. We will have coordination phone calls before then.
  
 
=Agenda=
 
=Agenda=
This is the big kick-off planning meeting for Ganymede and it behooves all projects who plan to be part of [http://wiki.eclipse.org/Ganymede Ganymede] to attend this meeting.
 
 
===Europa Fall and Winter Maintenance===
 
We need to be better coordinated. We almost seemed like two separate groups for this Fall release: one group that released Friday morning and another that was still conforming to the posted schedule for getting their bits in. 
 
 
Nick suggests:
 
Europa  +0      +1      +2      EPP      Release
 
Winter  02/18  02/20  02/25  02/27      02/29
 
 
Nick asks: given EclipseCON is Mar 17, we could delay M5 by a week or two and
 
still be done in time. Good idea/bad idea? 
 
 
Kim says: As for communication, there were many questions sent to the lists regarding the schedule.  If the Europa status were sent out regularly and also noted the upcoming tasks required to hit the release dates,  a lot of unnecessary email could have been avoided.  Yes, it is available on the wiki but the reality is that everyone is busy and forgets to check it.
 
 
===Define the Ganymede Musts and Shoulds Rules===
 
We will set the rules for what it means to be part of Ganymede: the should dos and the must dos. We (the EMO) will be enforcing the must dos this year.
 
 
===Milestone Dates===
 
We will set the milestone dates and the expectations for each milestone (API freeze, code freeze, changes now require two approvals, etc). We will decide whether to use a strict +1, +2 week milestones or whether to use a rolling milestone build - and in either case, the process we are going to use to make it work.
 
 
Nick wonders if we ought to have more steps between +0 and Release -- he'd like to see at
 
least +3 and +4 added.
 
 
===User Interface Guidelines===
 
Bjorn is trying to arrange a report from the [[User Interface Best Practices Working Group]] to see if the guidelines are in sufficient shape for us to adopt for Ganymede. Perhaps a must do? And if so, how to we evaluate conformance? What are the rules? Discuss Mike and the Board's email [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ui-best-practices-working-group/msg00229.html]
 
 
 
===Ganymatic===
 
===Ganymatic===
 
Bjorn will describe the Ganymatic build system and how you will contribute your project.
 
Bjorn will describe the Ganymatic build system and how you will contribute your project.
Line 42: Line 16:
 
At the very least, let's avoid surprises. Better yet, let's work on a process by which we can collectively decide to add or remove supported platforms.
 
At the very least, let's avoid surprises. Better yet, let's work on a process by which we can collectively decide to add or remove supported platforms.
  
===Packages===
+
:I agree, it's important to let people know about changes like these, and IMHO, we did. See [[EMF/EMF_2.3_Plan_History | EMF 2.3 Plan History]] for details. We gave people ample time between posting the plan and committing the changes (over 4 months), so that objections could be raised -- and none were. If we could have done better, please let us know how. --[[User:Codeslave.ca.ibm.com|nickb]] 11:33, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
The Europa releases included four packages on the download page. This proved to be quite successful and we're planning to do at least the same thing for Ganymede. However one critique of the packages last year was that there was inadequate cross-project testing within the packages. So this year the projects that are incorporated into the packages need to agree to do some cross-project testing. Specifically, they need to agree to do their usual testing with the package rather than just with their own project image.
+
 
 +
:I want to add that BIRT project is aware of the change of requiring Java 5 support in Europa. The BIRT PMC has discussed this topic, see this meeting minute [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/birt-dev/msg06970.html] and agreed to supporting Java 5.  Some project members might have expressed strong opinion about this requirement, but the project as a whole did reach an agreement. --[[User:actuate.com|wli]]
 +
 
 +
===Community-Based Testing===
 +
What can we, as leaders of Eclipse projects, do to encourage more community-based testing? I've been bringing up the idea of a CPAN-like testing system [http://testers.cpan.org/] for Eclipse for a number of meetings, but I'd like to do more than talk. Let's discuss options that do not involve big new mandates on the projects and yet get our community more involved in testing the Eclipse packages and distros.
  
 
===Discussion===
 
===Discussion===
* How can we make Ganymede better than Europa?
 
* Should we agree to rules about conformance UI guidelines? About framework integration at the UI or API levels?
 
* How do we guarantee early adoption of intermediate milestones of between projects rather than waiting for last minute integration testing?
 
* How do we ensure API cleanliness (i.e. not relying on other project's internals)?
 
 
* Concerns about the Eclipse Top-Level Project splitting streams (3.x vs. 4.0)?
 
* Concerns about the Eclipse Top-Level Project splitting streams (3.x vs. 4.0)?
 
* Performance and scalability. Is there consensus ? Actions to improve ? Measurements ?
 
* Performance and scalability. Is there consensus ? Actions to improve ? Measurements ?
 +
 +
==Previous Minutes==
 +
* [[Planning Council Minutes 2007.11.06]]

Latest revision as of 10:12, 5 August 2009

This page was used to gather input for the 2007 Eclipse Planning Council face-to-face meeting. For more current meeting agendas and minutes, see the main Planning Council page.

Location

The next face-to-face will be at EclipseCon in Santa Clara, CA on Sunday, March 16th. We will have coordination phone calls before then.

Agenda

Ganymatic

Bjorn will describe the Ganymatic build system and how you will contribute your project.

Brand/Trademark

Just a note that the Eclipse project name policy defines "Eclipse Ganymede" as an Eclipse Foundation brand/trademark for the benefit of the Eclipse community. This means that the Eclipse Foundation (a.k.a. the EMO) controls where the trademark is used, how it can be incorporated in corporate advertising, etc.

Supported Platforms

The BIRT team suggests: There should be a set of supported platforms that all participating Eclipse projects agree to support. With the amount of inter-dependence between Eclipse projects, letting each project decide on its own will cause more confusion in the community. An example would be java 5 support in Europa. BIRT wasn't planning on requiring it, until we were surprised and forced to by WTP and EMF deciding without consulting us.

At the very least, let's avoid surprises. Better yet, let's work on a process by which we can collectively decide to add or remove supported platforms.

I agree, it's important to let people know about changes like these, and IMHO, we did. See EMF 2.3 Plan History for details. We gave people ample time between posting the plan and committing the changes (over 4 months), so that objections could be raised -- and none were. If we could have done better, please let us know how. --nickb 11:33, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I want to add that BIRT project is aware of the change of requiring Java 5 support in Europa. The BIRT PMC has discussed this topic, see this meeting minute [1] and agreed to supporting Java 5. Some project members might have expressed strong opinion about this requirement, but the project as a whole did reach an agreement. --wli

Community-Based Testing

What can we, as leaders of Eclipse projects, do to encourage more community-based testing? I've been bringing up the idea of a CPAN-like testing system [2] for Eclipse for a number of meetings, but I'd like to do more than talk. Let's discuss options that do not involve big new mandates on the projects and yet get our community more involved in testing the Eclipse packages and distros.

Discussion

  • Concerns about the Eclipse Top-Level Project splitting streams (3.x vs. 4.0)?
  • Performance and scalability. Is there consensus ? Actions to improve ? Measurements ?

Previous Minutes

Back to the top