Planning Council/February 02 2011

Logistics

Meeting Title:	Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time:	Wednesday, February 02, 2010, at 1200 Eastern
Dial-in:	For the call-in numbers, see the "Project Review" number on Foundation Portal page.

Attendees

PMC (and Strategic) Reps

Chris Aniszczyk	Technology (PMC)	N
John Arthorne	Eclipse (PMC)	R
Oliver Cole	Tptp (PMC)	X
Mik Kersten	Mylyn (ALM) PMC	Y ("finally" :)
Brian Payton	Datatools (PMC)	Y
Anthony Hunter	Tools (PMC)	N
Adrian Mos	SOA (PMC)	N
Ed Merks	Modeling (PMC)	N
Thomas Watson	Rt (PMC)	N
David Williams	WTP (PMC) (appointed Chair)	Y
Gary Xue	Birt (PMC)	Y

Strategic Reps

Cedric Brun	OBEO (Strategic Developer)	N
Stefan Daume	Cloudsmith Inc.(Strategic Developer)	N
Neil Hauge	Oracle (Strategic Developer)	N
Kaloyan Raev	SAP AG (Strategic Developer)	Y
Pascal Rapicault	Sonatype (Strategic Developer)	Y
Markus Knauer	Innoopract (Strategic Developer)	N
Christian Kurzke	Motorola (Strategic Developer)	N
Achim Loerke	BREDEX (Strategic Developer)	Y

Appointed

Wayne Beaton

Eclipse Foundation (appointed)

Y

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

Inactive

?	Nokia (Strategic Developer)	X
?	CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer)	X
?	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.

Announcements

A change to the Eclipse Software User Agreement is coming (bug 316152). It is recommended that you adopt the new PDE license feature support so you can more easily adapt to license changes. You can simply refer to the license feature defined by the Eclipse top-level project, which will be updated whenever the SUA changes. You should wait for bug 316152 to be resolved before switching.

Maintenance Schedule

Helios SR2

2/25/2011 (Fourth Friday of February)

For detailed RC schedules, see Service Release Schedule in master plan

RC2 is this week ... release is later this month ... any issues?

No issues raised

Indigo Status

M5 this week ... any issues?

Pascal mentioned a new build of market-place client is needed for M5 due to some p2 (internal) changes.

any exceptions to discuss?

No exceptions were specifically approved at this meeting, but we discussed some that will be requested for M6:

Libra. Provisioned. Building (just for day or two). Plans to release as incubating subproject of WTP. Kaloyan to prepare pages, information about project, and he (and WTP) will come back with costs and benefits explanations when requesting the exception.

WindowBuilder. Just provisioned. Still CQ work to do. (Wayne was optimistic, but ... less certainty that it can get going in time).

RAT: Not yet provisioned, nor had creation review. Wayne to followup with them.

(ongoing reminder) remember to aggregate project tracking, IP logs, docuware, etc., and update project meta-data as Wayne requested in cross-project note.

Indigo Plan and Schedule

Should we provide (whole) Orbit Repository as a "runtime target" category? Should it be a "trusted repo"? See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=310578#c11

To summarize discussion: It was thought this was not a good time. Maybe next release? There was no insurmountable problems known, but many questions, that should be discussed widely, and over time, to make sure we were not setting a precedent we couldn't support. Such as, this is a "change in philosophy" for the common repo. Until now it has been oriented towards end-user function, and just last year, runtime targets (which is more for committers or extenders) but still function/feature oriented. So, do we want to be/provide such a general purpose 'common bundle repository'. Should we wait till Orbit provides "one repo for all time" repository of bundles, or change every release. Currently Orbit itself does not "release" in the normal Eclipse sense, the bundles it provides do via being included in other projects, but seems if we had a common repo, it should have it's own "release review". (In fact, due to history and evolution, there are bundles still produced by Orbit that are not released in any specific yearly release, as an Eclipse Project does not release with it included). Would this lead to Eclipse projects not "including" a bundle in their distribution, and just relying on the common repo for p2 to find it? And ... would this be a good or bad thing? Currently, PC members had not seen many problems or difficulties in this area, so some question about "what problem are we solving" and while everyone could imagine it'd be a little usability improvement, over users having to add the Orbit repo URL themselves, didn't seem worth solving right now with so many questions. In fact, even lead to one question of is a valid solution would be just to provide the URL "pre-populated" with some of the standard or common distributions, such as from EPP). While not certain, it may be that Orbit can not be part of an operation where a user says "install everything" ... that is, some known, unavoidable conflicts. While there are certainly fixes or ways around this ... it is work someone would have to do. So, did not rule out the concept for all time ... but, more work needed. I'll update the bugzilla with this summary.

recently announced EMO dates for Indigo release: (I have added these to our Planning Calendar for convenience).

February 11, 2011 - Last day to enter CQs for Indigo projects
May 18, 2011 - Please submit your IP Logs
June 1, 2011 - Review documentation submitted to EMO for release review
June 1-8, 2011 - Review period.

Other business

EclipseCon face-to-face meeting: Sunday, 3/20, 3-4? Alternatives?

confirmed/agreed 3-4, 3/20

Name that release. Indigo+1. Need volunteer to drive community discussion and vote.

Pascal graciously volunteered to drive this year's "name that release" effort/process.

ToDo Items

How is the RoadMap coming along? (Wayne)

Progress, but slow. Wayne still working with individual projects that have not provided one (and maybe didn't even know they needed one ... so, sounds like some PMC/mentoring guidance needed?).

Wayne would like to "extend" the meaning and use of some fields in project meta-data so there projects could summarize their release, etc., instead of sending email or making part of docuware. More could be automated then. Overall summaries provided, etc. Wayne will (likely) send note to cross-project soon with this request.

New project release tools. Some ready. Some near ready? (Wayne)

Sounds like Wayne's made some excellent tools to ease and improve the quality of the process. He'll be posting more notes soon (approximately Friday).