Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Planning Council/November 02 2016

< Planning Council
Revision as of 12:16, 2 November 2016 by (Talk | contribs) (Mark myself as having attended (I was 10 minutes late).)


Meeting Title: Planning Council Conference Call
Date & Time: Wednesday, Nov 02, 2016, 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.)

For all phone lines: Participant conference extension: 710 then enter pin 35498
  • Ottawa (local call in Ottawa) 1-613-454-1403
  • North America (toll free) 1-866-569-4992
  • Germany (local call anywhere in Germany) +49-692-2224-6059
  • France (local call anywhere in France) +33-17-070-8535
  • UK (toll free) 0800-033-7806
  • Switzerland (local call anywhere in Switzerland) +41-44-580-2115
  • SIP clients:
call, then enter pin 35498.

Members and Attendees

PMC (and Strategic) Reps
Martin Lippert Cloud (PMC)
Chris Aniszczyk Technology (PMC)
Dani Megert Eclipse (PMC)
Sam Davis Mylyn (ALM) PMC
Brian Payton Datatools (PMC)
Doug Schaefer Tools (PMC)
Ian Bull Rt (PMC)
Chuck Bridgham WTP (PMC)
Wayne Beaton Eclipse Foundation (appointed)
David Williams (appointed Chair) Y
Strategic Reps
Marc Khouzam Ericsson
Alexander Nyssen itemis AG (Strategic Developer) Y
Nick Boldt Red Hat (Strategic Developer)
Remi Schnekenburger CEA List (Strategic Developer)
Cedric Brun OBEO (Strategic Developer)
Neil Hauge Oracle (Strategic Developer)
Stephan Merker SAP AG (Strategic Developer)
Markus Knauer EPP (appointed)
(has PMC rep; Dani Megert) IBM (Strategic Developer) X
[no name] CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer) X
(was Gary Xue) Birt (PMC) X
(has/had PMC rep) Actuate (Strategic Developer) X
(was Rajeev Dayal) Google (Strategic Developer) X
Ed Merks Modeling (PMC) X
Adrian Mos (Marc Dutoo ) SOA (PMC) X-R(2)

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


  •  ?

Previous meeting minutes

  • Review previous meeting minutes if you'd like. That is, review them before the meeting, but if questions or issues with previous minutes, this would be a good time to bring them up.

Neon maintenance

  • Are we done with these?
- Was "Neon.1 help" ever deployed? See bug 500938.
Assuming so, now focus needs to be on bug 499411 to make things easier for all releases.
- [Wayne?] Create New and Noteworthy for Neon.1 (bug 500939)
Likewise, I assume we can "declare victory", but are "we" (Wayne?) prepared to do this for all releases? Do we "need a documented process"?
  • Any issues for Neon.2? Any new projects joining? I assume some will have new features? (But I do not know what they are. Does anyone?)

Oxygen Planning

  • Java 9 Coordination [Dani]. After discussing what to do about Java 9 date changing, at a previous meeting, we also discussed the need for "Java 9 coordination". Dani, is this a fair summary of that work item:
1) Find out which other projects plan to participate in a likely "July Java 9 update" (that is who is plans to "support Java 9 during development time"?)
2) Educate projects on how and WHEN to test their code 'running' on Java 9. Ideally, as projects test on Java 9 there will be a synergy where projects will educate each other on what was discovered and what others should look for (perhaps on a wiki, somewhere).
  • There has been a lot of discussion about "giving up release name" and using "date" instead. See bug 493490.
- Further discussion in a previous meeting lead to the idea that one thing that is missing is what DO we call the thing we are releasing. "Eclipse Neon" seems too vague and definitely sounds like a different thing than "Eclipse Mars" (even if you add "release". Some quick suggestions were "Eclipse IDE - Neon Version" or similar (with dates, probably).
- What's wrong with "Package"?
  • - Main ACTION ITEM is that we owe the community some official response on bug 493490 about what our official PC plan or response is. Is there agreement the following is our official position? If so, I will comment in bug 493490.
Summary of our position: decided that we can not "solve" this issue for Oxygen, but we can make incremental improvement. After that incremental improvement, we may have a better idea of the core problem to fix. As things are now, there is little chance of getting agreement on what the problem is or how to fix it. As of now, it is sort of like saying that "the problem is that things are confusing" -- too broad to fix all at once. We do not want to abandon the "code name" (at least for now) based on what we know. It is highly recommend that specific areas where confusion is seen that bugs be opened with a suggestion on how to improve. This includes web pages, splash screens, tutorials, instructions, announcements, press releases, and anything else where "version" and "code name" and "contents of deliverable" are confused. In general it is recommended that any place the code name is used there needs to be more information: such as version or date or build id (depending on context). Also, I think that "check for update" should give some indication that a "whole new stream" is available -- as the Installer currently does.
  • New levels of IP.
- Do we, as Planning Council, want to stipulate a participating project must be of "type B"? Or, do we not care? It may depend on "how labeled"? How do users or companies know? What do they expect?
- Wayne has opened bug bug 501014 for comments.
  • From previous meeting, we decided our initial position should be "status quo" -- that is, to say it is required that each project in the Sim. release repository (and EPP packages) be of Type B. A few reasons given:
- Adopters or users may be surprised to get a different legal process than what they are used to. This not only concerns adopters which build stand alone commercial product, but some build features which prereq certain EPP packages are installed, so they direct their customers to install those packages first, and then install their features. Plus, while is it commonly believed "users don't care", many of those users work for corporations or government agencies which do care. For example, the corporation may have a policy that "it is ok to download and install things from Eclipse where all the code has been "reviewed as Type B". But those corporations might also they their developers: "it is not ok to download open source in general and not even from Eclipse for Type A". It is unlikely to get corporations to state what their internal policies are, since they would consider that confidential, so it just seems safest to go with "status quo" -- until we learn otherwise or have good reason to change.
- Some projects that want to use this new Type A policy, such as Orion, have always been "part of the Simultaneous Release", but not part of the Sim. Release repository. It is only the repository that we are saying it is required for, not the Release, per se.
- "How labeled" may make a difference. For example, as far as we know, it is still required that any EPP package that contain "incubating projects" label the whole EPP package as "incubating". Could there be something similar for "Type A" or "Type B" projects? And, the methods must be meaningfully named to be usable (by users); not just "Type A" and "Type B".
  • New for Nov 2 meeting: Nick Boldt has some new information and questions and a proposal that he posted to PC mailing list message. Let's discuss!

  • Should the ability to update from yearly release to yearly release be a 'requirement'?
ACTION ITEM from 6/8 meeting. Doug volunteered to "take up" this item to better specify "what does it mean" and "what will it take" to update across major releases. After last meeting, Doug, mentioned he thinks this is a UI issue and he would take it up with the UI task force. I do not think it is only a UI issue, but from our point of view, more a matter of what we expect projects to do differently. As I have listed before:
What would this take? Such as,
features can never be removed but can be replaced with some form of transition. See bug 314165 and bug 371302.
Preferences, views, etc. have to "migrate" (if their ID changes)?
What testing would projects have to do?
What is the effect on commercial products? That is, will their customers get sufficient information that they "... can not upgrade without voiding their warranty", so to speak?
Have we ever had a case where year-to-year updates worked? (For everything.)
For Neon, it was the change in package layouts. (Hence we backed-off having a "streamless URL".)
For Luna? it was the change in MacOS layouts
For Mars? it was the Window executable could not be updated. (Now it can be, as long as it is named exactly 'eclipse.exe').
Eventually I assume we would want a built-in stream-less URL. I am assuming for Oxygen we want have a stream-less URL available, but not built in, to enable testing the update from Neon to Oxygen. (See bug 483786)
  • Release Policy vs. Release mechanics. This is being tracked in bug 483322.
In Neon M6 we changed to have (nearly) all features to be "root features.
Now what? That is, can we "stop" adding "reference repositories" via feature p2.inf files?
Can we make an official policy on "off scheduled fixes" (as we are considering for MPC)?

New Business

  •  ?

Next Meeting

  • November 7, 2016 - Regular First Wednesday Meeting


Draft Eclipse Project Branding Requirements (Wayne)
Neon Wiki page
Planning Council Members
Simultaneous Release Roles and Simultaneous Release Roles/EMO

Copyright © Eclipse Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.