Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Science WG/2017 Release


  • Early August, 2017: Get logo guidelines to Torkild (For details, see Issue #253: Develop Guidance For Triquetrum Logo
    • September 14, 2017: We are too late to get this done before the Science 2016 release. Logos require board approval, which is typically granted. Triquetrum and TeXlipse submitted guidelines. We will have logos eventually.
    • September 15, 2017: Torkild wrote: "Just an update on the logos. We do not have to go through board approval unless the logo is derived from the Eclipse logo. If it was created by a committer, or provenance is clear and it is owned by the project it can simply be committed. Also be aware of possible trademark infringement as may be the case with the proposed TeXlipse logo."
  • Friday, September 22, 2017: Submit release materials including IPLog. says:
Release reviews run for a week and always conclude on a Wednesday.
Note We schedule reviews to conclude on the 'first and third Wednesdays of the month'. Your release date does not have to coincide with the review date (you can set the release date as necessary). The review must, however, conclude successfully before you can make the release official. A 'release review' requires review documentation and an intellectual property (IP) log check. The review process must be initiated at least two weeks in advance of the anticipated 'review' date.
Two weeks in advance of October 10 is September 26, so the review process must be initiated by September 26. Will the review on the first Wednesday of the month (October 4) would catch this?
  • October 10, 2017: The Eclipse Science 2016 Release


Based on the Eclipse Science 2016 Release and on email from Tracy from June, 2017:

> At the SWG unconference in Toulouse, there was unanimous agreement that we should have a 2nd Science simultaneous release, following on from our successful one last year [1].

> The release will be scheduled for October 2017, with a proposed date of 10th October 2017. This would be 2 weeks before Eclipsecon Europe and once again use this release and conference as momentum to promote the latest of our great features.

> To start with, could the project leads who are happy to participate in this release please respond to this email to confirm the participation of their project in the simultaneous release.

The release will be called The Eclipse Science 2017 Release.

This is similar to the the simultaneous release for Eclipse Eclipse. Each participating project would release their work at the same time as a separate release.

Question: do we want to try to create a workbench that would combine projects, or is this out of scope for October 2017? (Based on the Eclipse Science 2016 Release)

Answer from Tracy: No there are no plans for a combined workbench for this release, there is no strong community pull for this nor committed resources from any particular organisation.

This "release" will be a coordinated release in which all participating projects. If possible, each participating project will release on Oxygen.

Todo items:

  1. prepare a working version of their product that can be dubbed release X.Y.Z.
  2. complete all IP (See the IP team's work queue), Release Review and other Foundation requirements.
  3. all artifacts for participating projects are released at the individual project sites and through links at
  4. do whatever else Wayne Beaton says we have to do. ;-)

Participating projects

  • Todo:
    • Please add or remove your project here (in alphabetical order)
    • Linking to Eclipse Wiki pages and GitHub or Bugzilla issues is preferred.
    • Each project should consider
      • determining a release name (0.1?) (See below)
      • Collecting up IP issues, perhaps in a GitHub or Bugzilla issue
      • When ready, asking for release review.

Having a project listed here is a commitment to consider the possibility of releasing at the same time. Listing a project as part of the release need not be considered cast in stone.

See The Eclipse Science 2016 Release for possible material

  • Chemclipse Currently not part of the The Eclipse Science 2017 Release (6/23/17 email from Philip Wenig)
    • Need an offset +2, cause ChemClipse depends on Eclipse EAVP. So, Eclipse EAVP needs to be released first.
    • 9/13/17 email from Philip Wenig:
      • "ChemClipse needs Apache PDFBox as a dependency. I'm currently waiting for the approval of the CQ. It seems to be more tricky than expected."
      • "Furthermore, I'll soon have a chat with Yoshitaka, the founder of SWTChart. I would be happy to persuade him to file an Eclipse proposal. My intension is then to merge my SWTChart extensions, currently hosted under EAVP, with the "new" SWTChart project."
      • "Long story short: I assume that ChemClipse is not able to join the simrel this year."
  • Eclipse EASE
    • Christian wrote on ease-dev: "Sounds good, as discussed on this lest few weeks ago I anyway plan to have a release ready for ECE '17"
    • 9/14/17, Christian wrote: "EASE is on the way. PMC approval is pending, then we are ready for the review."
  • Eclipse EAVP (Needed by Chemclipse) (6/27/17 email from Robert Smith)
    • Jonah wrote: "Similarly, EAVP may need a +1 over January. However, keep in mind that Eclipse SimRel does not have +X for every dependency (if they did I think the estimate I once saw would be 20+ days, plus infinity as there are circular dependencies!)"
    • (9/13/17 email from Jay): "Philip, I hope you're not expecting EAVP itself to cause you any problems. We're planning our 0.2 release for the simrel and I'm hoping your extensions will still be part of that too."
      • (9/13/17 email from Philip): "no worries. I'm nearby finished with the SWTChart extension development. Let's chat the next days."
      • "I'm more concerned about the Apache PDFBox CQ."
  • Eclipse January (6/23/17 email from Jonah Graham)
    • (9/13/17 email from Jonah): "As for January, AFAIK it should be ready. I suppose we need a date for the release so we can start counting weeks backwards for when release reviews/etc need to be submitted."
  • Rich Beans (6/23/17 email from Matt Gerring)
  • TeXlipse (6/23/17 email from Torkild U. Resheim)
    • 9/14/17 update from Torkild: TeXlipse needs to a build process. There is a Jenkins instance and CI build, just need to figure out where to put installers.
  • Triquetrum (6/23/17 email from Erwin De Ley)
    • Erwin wrote: "Feeling optimistic after the January workshop in Toulouse, I'm considering trying out a first January integration in Triquetrum as well for the Science release. So we would be +1 over January as well then."
    • Triquetrum 0.2.0
    • Java DRMAA API v1 and impl for SGE are available from Orbit, for Oxygen.1 and Photon. CQs approved for binary distribution only. Sources are on a personal repo of Erwin. Thinking about making that an EclipseLabs project for source hosting.
    • (9/13/17 Christopher wrote:) We have one remaining submitted cq, which should be easy. Our Science2017Release Milestone] is 21% complete, but we could ship with what we have.

Release Versions

Eclipse has guidelines about Release Version Naming:

Releases and IP CQs says:

"Interim Releases. Incubation Phase projects may make releases. All major and minor releases must go through a Release Review."

Release Review says:

"Intellectual Property"

"Before you can consider a Release Review, all of the relevant CQs must be approved by the Eclipse Legal team. We cannot schedule a Review before the Legal team has completed their work. If you are waiting for CQs, please review where your CQs are, and when they are scheduled to be reviewed, in the IP team work queue."

On March 21, 2016, Wayne Beaton described the release process for projects in incubation:

"Projects can do releases while in incubation."

"All CQs for code/libraries that are included in the release bits must be closed/approved by the IP Team prior to the release."

"In the time leading up to the release, you can and should distribute milestone builds that includes code/libraries that the IP team has granted checkin approval for. These are not official releases, and should be annotated as such (e.g. 0.7M2)."

"I recommend that the Science Working Group make a master list of all the open CQs that are required for the coordinated autumn release that we can present to the IP Team along with your last question. This should be a relatively easy query if we have a list of participating projects. Giving the IP Team a clear picture of what needs to be accomplished is the best way of getting that question answered."

Back to the top