Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Architecture Council/Meetings/Meeting Notes"
m (→June 11, 2020) |
m (spelling) |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
** works out better communication strategy | ** works out better communication strategy | ||
** no more piggyback use | ** no more piggyback use | ||
− | ** 3rd party | + | ** 3rd party license |
− | ** no type b due | + | ** no type b due diligence |
** "clearly defined" (CD) has license information | ** "clearly defined" (CD) has license information | ||
** reduced engagement with IP team | ** reduced engagement with IP team | ||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
** can I use the tool | ** can I use the tool | ||
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
− | ** should project capture the output of the tool? | + | ** should the project capture the output of the tool? |
* Wane | * Wane | ||
** good idea! | ** good idea! | ||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
** how to you know it is a "works with"? | ** how to you know it is a "works with"? | ||
* Wane | * Wane | ||
− | ** some people use "works with" as workaround | + | ** some people use "works with" as a workaround |
* Kai | * Kai | ||
** why don't do we need CQs for 3rd party? | ** why don't do we need CQs for 3rd party? | ||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
** ideally, the tool could automatically figure it out | ** ideally, the tool could automatically figure it out | ||
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
− | ** IP team running the tool assumes IP team understands the project structure | + | ** IP team running the tool assumes the IP team understands the project structure |
** they should not have a deep technical understanding of the team | ** they should not have a deep technical understanding of the team | ||
** part of this work has to be done by the project | ** part of this work has to be done by the project | ||
* Wane | * Wane | ||
** he missed a yarn dependency -* knowing his tool | ** he missed a yarn dependency -* knowing his tool | ||
− | ** | + | ** We rely on project understanding the dependency |
** we still need an IP log | ** we still need an IP log | ||
* Kai | * Kai | ||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
** the release version what we care about | ** the release version what we care about | ||
** engage IP team as early as possible | ** engage IP team as early as possible | ||
− | ** CD adds unknown libs** 4 | + | ** CD adds unknown libs** 4 weeks later it may know the answer |
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
** we also use IPzilla | ** we also use IPzilla | ||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
** lsp4J | ** lsp4J | ||
* Gunnr | * Gunnr | ||
− | ** we had | + | ** we had incubating problems before |
** feature must be branded with incubating | ** feature must be branded with incubating | ||
** EPP needs to declare that | ** EPP needs to declare that | ||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
** why is it still incubating?? | ** why is it still incubating?? | ||
* Jonah | * Jonah | ||
− | ** lsp4J does not | + | ** lsp4J does not have stable APIs |
− | ** we won't have | + | ** we won't have stable APIs |
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
− | ** | + | ** challenge stable APIs |
** projects understand the requirement | ** projects understand the requirement | ||
− | ** API is a framework to support | + | ** API is a framework to support adopters |
− | ** we need to clarify the wording -* have a | + | ** we need to clarify the wording -* have a sense for adoption support |
** every project defines its own rules | ** every project defines its own rules | ||
* Wane | * Wane | ||
− | ** PMC can define what stable | + | ** PMC can define what stable means |
− | ** | + | ** Instead: don't screw your adopters |
* Jonah | * Jonah | ||
** get lsp4j to graduate | ** get lsp4j to graduate | ||
* Alex | * Alex | ||
− | ** what is the | + | ** what is the benefit of marking as incubating |
− | ** for end user visible no need to label | + | ** for the end user visible no need to label incubating |
* Wane | * Wane | ||
− | ** will take to the IP adviser | + | ** will take to the IP adviser community |
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
− | ** | + | ** incubation could contain IP problems |
* Wane | * Wane | ||
− | + | ** leaning process | |
− | ** leaning | + | ** codebase is unstable |
− | ** | + | |
** ideal: lear and after one release graduate | ** ideal: lear and after one release graduate | ||
− | ** used to be some benefits ins | + | ** used to be some benefits ins trying in incubation |
* Dani | * Dani | ||
** makes sense to drop incubation | ** makes sense to drop incubation | ||
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
** for transparency it may be helpful -* some companies care | ** for transparency it may be helpful -* some companies care | ||
− | ** we need motivation to move out of | + | ** we need the motivation to move out of incubation |
* Jonah | * Jonah | ||
** reality that is not the case | ** reality that is not the case | ||
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
− | ** wrong discussion** we are not | + | ** wrong discussion** we are not Github |
− | ** what is the benefit of | + | ** what is the benefit of incubation |
* Dani | * Dani | ||
** it is punishing the package | ** it is punishing the package | ||
* Wane | * Wane | ||
− | ** the package owners have motivation to push the incubating projects | + | ** the package owners have the motivation to push the incubating projects |
− | ** | + | ** upstream care about it |
− | ** as | + | ** as consumer I want the API to be stable |
* Gunnar | * Gunnar | ||
** no need in the download name | ** no need in the download name | ||
Line 249: | Line 248: | ||
* Jonah | * Jonah | ||
** we are changing file names at the moment | ** we are changing file names at the moment | ||
− | ** the | + | ** the filename is `-incubation` is the current state |
* Wane | * Wane | ||
** don't change the file names | ** don't change the file names | ||
Line 260: | Line 259: | ||
==== May 14, 2020 ==== | ==== May 14, 2020 ==== | ||
* EMO Update | * EMO Update | ||
− | ** Wayne asked one more time for feedback | + | ** Wayne asked one more time for feedback on the IP tool. |
** The IP tool is now part of Dash in GitHub and pull-request are welcome. | ** The IP tool is now part of Dash in GitHub and pull-request are welcome. | ||
*** Jonah contributed Yarn support. | *** Jonah contributed Yarn support. | ||
Line 266: | Line 265: | ||
* Infrastructure Update | * Infrastructure Update | ||
− | ** New firewalls were put in place early May. They har redundant and part of the program to reduce single-point-of-failures. | + | ** New firewalls were put in place in early May. They har redundant and part of the program to reduce single-point-of-failures. |
− | ** Thanks to a lot help we are clear for a long overdue Gerrit update. The sandbox is running and an upgrade is planned for after the 2020-06 release. Please prepare as Gerrit will come with a new UI/UX. | + | ** Thanks to a lot of help we are clear for a long-overdue Gerrit update. The sandbox is running and an upgrade is planned for after the 2020-06 release. Please prepare as Gerrit will come with a new UI/UX. |
** Jonah asked if we are on the latest version of Bugzilla. Denis confirmed we are on the latest official release. | ** Jonah asked if we are on the latest version of Bugzilla. Denis confirmed we are on the latest official release. | ||
− | *** There is an edit extension | + | *** There is an edit extension that Denis was unable to get to work in our Bugzilla instance. |
** Setup of a production GitLab instance in Switzerland started. | ** Setup of a production GitLab instance in Switzerland started. | ||
* Removing Inactive Committers | * Removing Inactive Committers | ||
** The general feedback is that this should not be automated. | ** The general feedback is that this should not be automated. | ||
− | ** However, having a regular reminder to project leads for | + | ** However, having a regular reminder to project leads for housekeeping the committers is a good idea. |
** The definition of "active" is blurry. Hence, it always has to be a manual process. | ** The definition of "active" is blurry. Hence, it always has to be a manual process. | ||
Line 288: | Line 287: | ||
* EMO Update | * EMO Update | ||
** Wayne thanked for feedback to IP tooling received so far. It's helpful. Please provide more feedback if you can. | ** Wayne thanked for feedback to IP tooling received so far. It's helpful. Please provide more feedback if you can. | ||
− | ** Next steps are to make a repository available and bring tooling to the Eclipse Dash project and make it available. | + | ** The Next steps are to make a repository available and bring tooling to the Eclipse Dash project and make it available. |
** As of today, CQs for known license sources of 3rd party content is no longer required. | ** As of today, CQs for known license sources of 3rd party content is no longer required. | ||
Line 299: | Line 298: | ||
* Anonymous contributions (Jonah) | * Anonymous contributions (Jonah) | ||
− | ** A GitHub account as contributor is ok, it can be traced back to an individual. | + | ** A GitHub account as a contributor is ok, it can be traced back to an individual. |
** An ECA must be signed in any case. This requires a real email address and this is sufficient. | ** An ECA must be signed in any case. This requires a real email address and this is sufficient. | ||
** EMO expectation to committers is to monitor and catch/report shenanigans. | ** EMO expectation to committers is to monitor and catch/report shenanigans. | ||
− | ** The handbook wording needs an updated and will investigated separately. | + | ** The handbook wording needs an updated and will be investigated separately. |
* Parallel IP (Jonah) | * Parallel IP (Jonah) | ||
** Wayne explained that Parallel IP is now the standard way of doing things at Eclipse. | ** Wayne explained that Parallel IP is now the standard way of doing things at Eclipse. | ||
− | ** The code can go in early but a release needs to wait for full review. | + | ** The code can go in early but a release needs to wait for a full review. |
− | ** It's important to put release records | + | ** It's important to put release records into PMI as early as possible. The IP team will use the dates to prioritize their work. |
Revision as of 12:29, 11 June 2020
This page captures meeting notes of the Eclipse Architecture Council.
Please add topics for the next call to the backlog, but not during a call!
Standing Agenda
- Update from EMO (Wayne/Gunnar)
- Infrastructure Update (Denis)
- Backlog
Backlog
(Please add agenda items/topics for discussion here.)
- The majority of EPP packages are currently slated to contain incubating components in IDE 2020-06. There is a question about whether the downloadable file name must contain "incubating" or simply mention this in its description.
- Argument for: our EPP packages are "opinionated" and aimed at end-users, the state of the included projects and technologies is paramount
- Projects see leaving incubation as a cost without any obvious value
Action Items
- none
Past Meetings
June 11, 2020
Maybe we need a summary of that meeting -- I just tried to capture what has been said
Participants
- Gunnar Wagenknecht
- Michael Scharf
- Martin Lippert
- Jonah Graham
- Kai Hudalla
- Wayne Beaton
- Mikael Barbero
- Alexander Kurakov
- Jeff Jhonston
- Dani Megert
- Dimitry Kornilov
- Torkind
- Jay Jay Billings
IP
- Wane:
- change: release review only required once a year
- IP policy changes
- how to document the changes
- works out better communication strategy
- no more piggyback use
- 3rd party license
- no type b due diligence
- "clearly defined" (CD) has license information
- reduced engagement with IP team
- Kai:
- clearly defined is hard to use
- Wane:
- hard to put numbers on things
- use CD to just extract license info
- tool to automate as much as possible
- struggling how to capture this (how to use CD data)
- Kai:
- unclear how to use it
- no pointe in project handbook t the tool
- Wane
- use the tool to capture the intent of the IP policy changes
- ALexander
- can I use the tool
- Gunnar
- should the project capture the output of the tool?
- Wane
- good idea!
- add dependency file with the output of the tool
- IP log used for tracking -* we are no longer tracking
- Kai:
- is it a good tool for tracking
- want to see who is affected
- Wane
- tries to put documentation about the tool
- Gunar
- can PMCs help
- Wane
- once we have proper doc PMC can help out
- Kai:
- as soon as anybody casts a vote in the PMC the IP team considers this consent?
- have not seen any CQ be not approved
- Wane:
- IP team needs to know it makes sense
- PMC can discuss on the CQ, but as soon as someone adds a +1 they jump in
- Gunnar:
- occasionally +1 does not work
- , therefore, we use in in the comments
- Wane
- there are some problems with the tool
- Kai
- can we agree that if any of the PMC hits OK then it is OK
- Wane
- one member can approve it, if he can do it with confidence then it is OK
- no "yes but.."
- Gunnar
- technology we operate like this
- Kai
- we were told to have a vote
- Wane
- was true at one time when it was far more formal
- change was not communicated
- I need confidence that it meets the definition
- Torkind
- Science does it similar to technology
- Gunnar
- with a growing base of projects it becomes harder to be aware of all codebases
- challenge: we as PMC trust project leads -* it is not always easy
- "works with" is one part
- I want separation
- Kai:
- do we have knowledge about build dependencies
- Wane
- would agree but layers don't
- "works with" for testing JUnit -* who cares?
- OS under apache -* chances are we have already information
- Kai:
- how to you know it is a "works with"?
- Wane
- some people use "works with" as a workaround
- Kai
- why don't do we need CQs for 3rd party?
- Wane
- ideally we run the tool 700 are fine and 3 have no license
- IP team says OK if it is a "works with"
- the more complete the coverage is the less engagement with IP team we need
- we could start doing this now
- Kai
- I want the IP team come to PMC and ask if it is a prereq of a "works with"
- should be the standard way
- Only in the few cases the IP team should ask
- just approve any works with
- Wane
- We need the PMC to clarify if it is a "works with"
- Wane
- only if the content requires further review a CQ has to be created
- Kai
- should the committer or the IP team run the tool?
- Wane
- my team doing more work
- Kai
- not sure
- Wane
- ideally, the tool could automatically figure it out
- Gunnar
- IP team running the tool assumes the IP team understands the project structure
- they should not have a deep technical understanding of the team
- part of this work has to be done by the project
- Wane
- he missed a yarn dependency -* knowing his tool
- We rely on project understanding the dependency
- we still need an IP log
- Kai
- list is what is generated by maven
- is anybody validating the IP log
- Wane
- I do and I run them too
- but 1 week before the release** may be late
- Kai
- if you run the tool on list of dependencies
- we do not need any CQ anymore
- Alexander
- we don't need the CQ as we run the tool
- but the project has to run the tool to see the output
- example: new JUnit version 1 week before the release
- licensing is not fast for the latest version
- Wane
- that is the case you need to engage the IP team with a CQ
- CQ the ticket to investigate the source
- 1 CQ for 700 npm dependencies
- Kai
- spring new miner version every few months
- still have to create CQs
- Wane
- we need it**only* on releases
- forget intermediate version
- I don't care when a version is only used during development
- the release version what we care about
- engage IP team as early as possible
- CD adds unknown libs** 4 weeks later it may know the answer
- Gunnar
- we also use IPzilla
- Wane
- IP team updates CD data
- opportunity to reduce paperwork with CQ
- opportunity on test and work only
Incubation
- Jonah
- do we need to incubate every EPP package
- number of incubating
- lsp4J
- Gunnr
- we had incubating problems before
- feature must be branded with incubating
- EPP needs to declare that
- Wane
- why is it still incubating??
- Jonah
- lsp4J does not have stable APIs
- we won't have stable APIs
- Gunnar
- challenge stable APIs
- projects understand the requirement
- API is a framework to support adopters
- we need to clarify the wording -* have a sense for adoption support
- every project defines its own rules
- Wane
- PMC can define what stable means
- Instead: don't screw your adopters
- Jonah
- get lsp4j to graduate
- Alex
- what is the benefit of marking as incubating
- for the end user visible no need to label incubating
- Wane
- will take to the IP adviser community
- Gunnar
- incubation could contain IP problems
- Wane
- leaning process
- codebase is unstable
- ideal: lear and after one release graduate
- used to be some benefits ins trying in incubation
- Dani
- makes sense to drop incubation
- Gunnar
- for transparency it may be helpful -* some companies care
- we need the motivation to move out of incubation
- Jonah
- reality that is not the case
- Gunnar
- wrong discussion** we are not Github
- what is the benefit of incubation
- Dani
- it is punishing the package
- Wane
- the package owners have the motivation to push the incubating projects
- upstream care about it
- as consumer I want the API to be stable
- Gunnar
- no need in the download name
- enough in the about dialog
- Jonah
- we are changing file names at the moment
- the filename is `-incubation` is the current state
- Wane
- don't change the file names
- fix this by moving them out of incubation
- keep the file name
Action item
- AC brings proposal on how we want to solve it and send it to IP advisor community
May 14, 2020
- EMO Update
- Wayne asked one more time for feedback on the IP tool.
- The IP tool is now part of Dash in GitHub and pull-request are welcome.
- Jonah contributed Yarn support.
- There are a few interesting project proposals coming up and mentors wanted.
- Infrastructure Update
- New firewalls were put in place in early May. They har redundant and part of the program to reduce single-point-of-failures.
- Thanks to a lot of help we are clear for a long-overdue Gerrit update. The sandbox is running and an upgrade is planned for after the 2020-06 release. Please prepare as Gerrit will come with a new UI/UX.
- Jonah asked if we are on the latest version of Bugzilla. Denis confirmed we are on the latest official release.
- There is an edit extension that Denis was unable to get to work in our Bugzilla instance.
- Setup of a production GitLab instance in Switzerland started.
- Removing Inactive Committers
- The general feedback is that this should not be automated.
- However, having a regular reminder to project leads for housekeeping the committers is a good idea.
- The definition of "active" is blurry. Hence, it always has to be a manual process.
- Mailing List Search
- Searching the mailing list was possible using Google Custom Search
- Seems to be broken - Jonah will open a bug (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=563173)
March 12, 2020
- Infrastructure Update
- New servers ready to go to replace servers that failed last month. ETA next week.
- Better hardware and 10 GBit technology will make things much better in the backend.
- EMO Update
- Wayne thanked for feedback to IP tooling received so far. It's helpful. Please provide more feedback if you can.
- The Next steps are to make a repository available and bring tooling to the Eclipse Dash project and make it available.
- As of today, CQs for known license sources of 3rd party content is no longer required.
- 3rd-party Mailing Lists
- Emily made us aware of an ask to send committer nomination emails to mailing lists outside Eclipse.org. While the PMI cannot do it easily, there is a workaround by subscribing the external mailing list to the Eclipse.org mailing list.
- New candidates for Architecture Council Membership (Wayne)
- We need to recruit/include members that are not yet known and work in Eclipse projects for a very long time already but with no intersection with others.
- Gunnar proposed a mentorship/outreach program/sessions where one AC member starts a conversation with potential candidates, explains the role of the AC, the work, etc. The goal is to get to know each other and invite new members to the AC.
- Anonymous contributions (Jonah)
- A GitHub account as a contributor is ok, it can be traced back to an individual.
- An ECA must be signed in any case. This requires a real email address and this is sufficient.
- EMO expectation to committers is to monitor and catch/report shenanigans.
- The handbook wording needs an updated and will be investigated separately.
- Parallel IP (Jonah)
- Wayne explained that Parallel IP is now the standard way of doing things at Eclipse.
- The code can go in early but a release needs to wait for a full review.
- It's important to put release records into PMI as early as possible. The IP team will use the dates to prioritize their work.
January 9, 2020
- Welcome Noopur to the AC
- No other topics so end the meeting early
Archive
Older meeting notes can be found in Architecture Council/Meetings/Archive.