Planning Council/March 03 2010
Contents
Logistics
| Meeting Title: | Planning Council Conference Call |
| Date & Time: | Wednesday, March 03, 2010, at 1700 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
|
PMC (and Strategic) Reps
Strategic Reps
Appointed
|
Inactive
|
Galileo
Assessment of SR2
Potential (near?) negative impact on adopters:
- Some "late"
- Modeling EMF ?CDO? missed deadline
- DTP final zips late (sort of)?
- Not all projects had maintenance/rebuilds (do we need to explicitly "plan" for that?)
- EclipseLink (thought they would not need an SR2, but after all decided they will need maintenance ... in March or so! ... apparently, this team has pattern of creating their service release shortly after the rest of us release?)
- PDT (PHP Tools) didn't have an SR2, but I saw one user on mailing list saying "he sure thought they needed one, based on important fixes made in Helios, that could be back ported ... its a long time to wait" (I've no idea if he was accurate ... just raising as an example that caught my attention).
- Potential for some Orbit Jars to not be consistent in some packages vs. others, if not everyone re-builds or re-packages. (Just one or two substantial changes, this time, but all others changed signatures).
- There were nearly equal numbers of projects that supplied service, vs. those that did not
- service released in SR2
- actf.build
- birt.build
- cdt.build
- dltk.build
- dsdp-tm.build
- dtp.build
- ecf.build
- eclipselink.build
- ep.build
- epp-udc.build
- equinox.build
- gef.build
- gmf.build
- jwt.build
- m2m-atl.build
- m2t-jet.build
- mylyn.build
- rap.build
- stp.build
- subversive.build
- swordfish.build
- tptp.build
- webtools.build
- no service released with SR2
- buckminster.build
- dsdp-tm.build
- emf-cdo.build
- emf-compare.build
- emf-emf.build
- emf-net4j.build
- emf-teneo.build
- emf-transaction.build
- emft-ecoretools.build
- emft-mint.build
- emft-mwe.build
- m2m-qvtoml.build
- m2t-xpand.build
- mat.build
- mdt-ocl.build
- mdt-uml2.build
- mdt-uml2tools.build
- mdt-xsd.build
- pdt.build
- riena.build
- tmf-xtext.build
- Any other concerns with SR2?
Good things:
- Maintained "old" content (SR1) in repository (in addition to new)
- Rolled out P2 artifacts before P2 metadata (instead of artifacts and metadata visible at same time)
- Any other positive things with SR2 to document? [mk - it went smoother than every other release before.]
Notes from meeting: No particular concerns, except Anthony and Ed both commented that in the cases they were aware of, "no service release" was just because there wasn't any bugs, that had been requested for that service release. Even GEF was almost "no service" with only one bug fixed. GMF, on the other hand, had many requests.
Helios
- Common repository naming/structure bug 291637
- I want to recommend "guidelines" that may become "required" next year (but not for Helios) but some, such as webtools, may move to it this release:
- ... structure of .../<project>/repository/<release>/[SRn | datetimestamp]/
- ... naming in feature URL would be (only) .../<project>/repository/<release>/
- where 'project' is high level project (Top level? except Tools and Technology? ... or request even Tools and Technology to have central one, or at least part of name and/or structure?
Such as /tools/gef/repository/helios/ ? - where 'release' is Yearly Release Name (e.g. 'helios') ... only for those in yearly release. Others would need to use some version number. (reserving yearly release name, for only those in yearly release).
- where 'project' is high level project (Top level? except Tools and Technology? ... or request even Tools and Technology to have central one, or at least part of name and/or structure?
- Also, do we agree that projects in release train can omit feature update URL? if they would like to? (since the common release repository URL is built into platform). We need less "repository locations" clutter. Risk is it would be a little harder to provide off-cycle maintenance (users would need to add project location to their list) for those projects deciding not to provide their own URL. They would, still, need to provide their own repository (since that's where central one is created from) just not name it in the feature.xml.
Notes from meeting: General agreement this was a good thing to do, and dw to write up for further review and/or (optional) adoption.
Cross-Project Teams
Aggregation
Planning Council/Cross Project Teams/Aggregation
Previously mentioned planned meeting didn't happen ... and after some email exchanges, nothing concrete seemed needed right away, except ....
We will encourage people to test Galileo to Helios upgrade, but not do anything to enable that to be "automatic". See or comment in bug bug 303583.
New question: Should we require projects to specify version numbers in .build file?
- Technically, if omitted, then simply "highest" one is retrieved from repository. That can be good, easier, but a little less error checking and record of what was intended.
Tracking progress and compliance
Review readiness of current version on Portal
Comments? Ok to move forward? Does anyone prefer Plan B or Plan C?
Notes from meeting: Council thought it was good and near ready. A few might review a bit more and have comments later, to be mailed to planning list. Tom and Oliver had suggestions for improvements, which I captured as follows, and forwarded to Gabe:
1. Make the three main sections look more like sections (as it is, sort of looks like just another item).
For example, perhaps indent the items 3 or 5 spaces from left and right margins (leaving the headings and their text as they are, flush with margins)? Also, perhaps use larger font for the three section "headings"?
2. At the very top, perhaps even above the "tracking project" line, put some explanation, and handy links.
Here's what I think it should be:
This form is to track progress towards the yearly <a href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Helios/Simultaneous_Release_Plan">Simultaneous Release</a>, for those project that have stated their intent and agreement to be part of that release. Projects (usually the Project Lead) should document their progress here, on meeting the <a href="http://www.eclipse.org/helios/planning/EclipseSimultaneousRelease.php">requirements for the Simultaneous Release</a>. Questions on how to complete the form can be asked on the <a href="mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org">cross-project list</a>. Suggestions for improving the form or process (or cross-project bugs) can be opened on the <a href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Community;component=Cross-Project">cross-project bugs component</a>. Bugs on this form itself can be opened on the <a href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Community;component=Portal">Foundation Portal component</a>.
ToDo Items
- create (and update) helios container plan (Wayne (re) volunteered)
- provide concrete instructions for (new) license-consistency requirement ... before M6? (John Arthorne).
- coordinate community input for next year's name (Oliver says last year this was started "shortly before EclipseCon" ... so now's the time!.
Other business
- Reminder: face-face EclipseCon meeting 2:00 to 3:00 (local time) on the Sunday before EclispeCon (3/21) in the Bayshore room of the Hyatt Santa Clara.
- Followed by "joint meeting" with other councils.
Next Meeting
- EclispeCon 3/21 2:00 PM Pacific Time, in the Bayshore room of the Hyatt Santa Clara
- April 7, Wednesday, Noon Eastern Time.
Reference
Simultaneous Release Roles and Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO