Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Planning Council/May 07 2014
< Planning Council
Revision as of 11:16, 10 May 2014 by Mknauer.eclipsesource.com (Talk | contribs) (→Previous meeting minutes)
Contents
Logistics
| Meeting Title: | Planning Council Conference Call |
| Date & Time: | Wednesday, May 7, 2014, 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.)
|
Members and Attendees
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
- Reminder: deadlines and dates for Luna CQs, Reviews, etc.
Previous meeting minutes
- Let's discuss "EclipseCon meeting" -- as final topic today -- any "actions" for Planning Council to track?
- EclipseCon face-to-face
- Previous "first Wednesday" meeting
- - Briefly discussed "patched packages" effort, if anyone had any sense if used/appreciated by community (i.e. was it a success?). Markus noted there was approximately 20K downloads, which is small compared to "main release" ... but ... such numbers are hard to interpret (i.e. the 20K might be a very important group of Eclipse community ... hard to know ... but, no doubt at least many people appreciated having them).
- - I mis-reported the number of "java8patch" downloads, directly from Eclipse Project repository. As of today, there has been roughly 13000, not the "1000" I mis-reported during meeting.
Luna Planning
- Any issues with M7? RCs?
- None known other than BIRT
Mars Planning
- Any early issues?
- Briefly discussed if we are meeting diverse needs of community. Some indication that some adopters (still) want pure service releases ... while others (especially individual users) want "latest and greatest", even if contains some regressions or new bugs.
- No in depth discussion, but some did note issues of how/if IP Process would have to change (say, to have monthly "releases"), some noted that "pure service releases" are important to some adopters "internal processes" of producing products (i.e. they may have one process for "bug fixes only" another process for "new features"). Some also wondered if "new feature releases" are that common, since often to accomplish that, it depends on multiple projects cooperating ... say, for hypothetical example, perhaps the Platform needs to change/add an API, for someone else to implement a new feature and it's (relatively) rare that project's goals/objectives all line up (on a frequent, such as monthly, basis). Though, it is obvious that "new projects" such as EGit, etc., can often add new features independent of what others do.
- I believe to make any progress on "doing things differently" we need to better define what "continuous release" means, for a large collection of Open Source projects ... Its very different from how a corporation might define it (where they can strictly define processes that everyone must follow) and different than how one Open Source project might define it (such as some, make a distinction between a "release" that has no maintenance (other than the next release), and only occasionally define one of those as a "long term support" release, which would get maintenance (only) -- and similar statements about "API" ... perhaps no solid API in "short lived" releases, but strict API in long term releases. So ... discussion to continue. Any volunteers to draft a straw-man definition of terminology for Eclipse releases?
- Very briefly discussed bug 434251 - Consider banning contribution of mutable repositories. I think everyone was sympathetic to the issue, but some weren't sure if it was "that big of a deal" for milestones, etc., which I think have since been answered in bug. I expressed my own reservations about "caches" and "locks" (but not my concerns about use of words such as "ban" -- tools not rules) ... but am happy that others are finally having some similar concerns that I've long had -- which we discuss at least every year -- and so far much resistance to "doing extra work", but sounds like some are willing to invest in tools to make it easier. I'll comment in bug soon (but ... I think I should do one of my action items below first. :)
Progress on Action Items
- Improved "aggregator examples/doc". (dw -- no progress).
- [Orbit plan (dw -- no formal progress)]
New Business
- ?
Next Meeting
- June 4, 2014 - Regular First Wednesday Meeting (Our last meeting of "Luna" cycle)
- [Proposed} No meeting in July?
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.