Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Kepler SR2 Respin

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There's no hard and fast rule ... but as
soon as we get the required 3 +1's that the Exception Process requires,
I always consider "passed".  

To be wordy, I think for the sake of
openness (or honesty?) someone could come along within a  week and
"object", ... but, it would have to be a very substantial reason
to outweigh the approval of 3 other members (such as "all 3 approvers
were from the same company and this change benefits only that one company,
and we are unwilling to pay the cost for the re-work required") or
something fundamental about the fairness of the process.  

In other words, 3 +1s are considered
"passed". There's nothing more Planning Council needs to do.
(Though, all members are still encouraged to read the bug and are welcome
to state their opinions if they'd like). 

If you hadn't noticed, the initial rework
was done over the weekend, 
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=428042#c18
and 
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=428822
and the new EPP packages just finishing
their re-build and submitted to maintainers for votes: 
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epp-dev/msg02942.html

As far as I'm concerned, we are still
on track for formal release on Friday, 2/28 ... buffers are planned for
a reason :) .... but naturally another "stop ship" bug would
likely cause our date to slip. I'd call a Planning Council meeting, if
that happened. 

Thanks, 





From:      
 Ian Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Eclipse Planning Council
private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Date:      
 02/24/2014 03:08 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
Kepler SR2 Respin
Sent by:    
   eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Thanks everyone! We have 3 +1s from PC members not directly
involved (Chris, Doug and Neil) as well as Dani and myself (total of 5)
which should be more than enough. This means that this issue won't be missed
due to inactivity on our part. If anyone has an objection to this plan,
please speak up.

David, what are the next steps from the planning council
perspective? Should we leave the voting open for another day, or are we
satisfied with the plan? 

Cheers,
Ian


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
+1 to 1

On Feb 21, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

+1 to fix and put our users
first.

Sent from my BlackBerry Z30

From: Neil Hauge
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:45 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
Reply To: Eclipse Planning Council private list
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Kepler SR2 Respin

+1 to option 1 based on the recommendation from the teams
closest to the situation.

Neil

On 2/21/2014 3:56 PM, Ian Bull wrote:
We have 3 options here. 

1. Use the proposed fix
2. Use another fix (revert the bug fix that revealed this)
3. Do nothing.

I really think #3 is terrible option. With this bug, users
will complete a successful install only to have an unusable Eclipse install.
That leaves 1 or 2. The Eclipse and Equinox teams have decided that 1 is
better than 2. Pascal outlined this too [1]. The reasons are

• #1 is already done and tested
• The code change required for #1 has very high automated test coverage
• This fixes the underlying problem, resulting in a better 'Eclipse'

[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-releng-dev/msg22016.html

I realize it's late in Europe and most North American's
have been busy today with the hockey game, but it would be great to hear
from everyone with a +/- 1. 

Cheers,
Ian



On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:40 AM, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'll abstain, but glad to re-build if
rest of planning council agrees. Thought I'd explain it wasn't completely
obvious to me a re-spin with current proposed fix is best (it likely is,
I'm just saying I did not want to be the sole decision maker for this one
... wanted to be sure others feel the risk is worth the benefit. In another
list, I've asked Pascal to explain why better to "add a fix",
rather than revert the fix that "exposed" this bug. In either
case I guess we' need a rebuild ... just want to be sure we are improving
stability (as well as quality). 

I think the procedure is that we need 3 +1's (2 more, considering Ian's
is 1) and then we'll rebuild, but I hope every member reviews the bug and
weighs in. 

Thanks, 




From:        Ian
Bull <irbull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        "eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        02/21/2014
12:28 PM 
Subject:        [eclipse.org-planning-council]
Kepler SR2 Respin 
Sent by:        eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

The p2, Equinox and Eclipse Platform team are currently in the process
of fixing a serious issue in p2 [1,2]. While the issue has existed for
a while, it was masked by another bug (which has been fixed). This bug
is critical because it can leave users in a completely broken state (plugins
may appear to be installed, but won't actually function). In the worse
case, Eclipse install may no longer start after a successful provisioning
operation. 

I would like to request a respin of Kepler SR2 (including the repository
and EPP Packages). We are still in the process of rebuilding the Eclipse
Platform, but I think we should start the discussion / vote here too. 

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=428575
[2] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg10328.html

Cheers, 
Ian 

-- 
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com
| http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council
mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
to request removal. 

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council
mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
to request removal.



-- 
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com
| http://twitter.com/eclipsesource



_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council
mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
to request removal.

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council
mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
to request removal.

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
to request removal.



-- 
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com
| http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.