| [wtp-dev] Minutes of the WTP Status Telecon, 2005-09-29 |
1. Review of Open Action Items [1] - Arthur Ryman
| 110309 | enh | P3 | PC | cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx | ryman@xxxxxxxxxx | NEW | J2EE Sta | [action] Add WTP 1.0 JST Component API Plan Items to Mas... | |
| 110308 | enh | P3 | PC | deboer@xxxxxxxxxx | ryman@xxxxxxxxxx | NEW | Web Stan | [action] Add WTP 1.0 WST Component API Plan Items to Mas... | |
| 110312 | enh | P3 | PC | ryman@xxxxxxxxxx | ryman@xxxxxxxxxx | ASSI | website | [action] Automatically Merge Bugzilla Work Items with XML... |
Jeffrey - I sent out a note requesting test status. I need results from Tim.
Tim - I'll test on your machine.
Jeffrey - There will be a rebuilt of Eclipse 3.1.1 for a minor legal correction. Any objection to declaring the release?
All - No.
David - We need to update the prereqs on the download page to the GM versions.
Jeffrey - Will do.
[action] Jeffrey to update the prereqs on the WTP 0.7.1 download page to point to the GM versions.[1]
[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=111135
3. WTP 1.0 M9 Status - David Williams
David - The weekly I-build has a JUnit failure in generic servers [1] so we can't declare until that's fixed. I've asked Gorken to resolve, Everyone should test and raise objections by tomorrow.
Gorkem - I have fixed the test and released it.
David - We'll rebuild so people can do testing.
Tim - There are no I-builds listed on the download page.
David - We have a committer download area [2] for the continuous builds. After successful testing we move it to the main download area.
Karen - Where are the nightly builds?
David - We only do nighly builds on request. But we do continuous map builds.
Tim - All the continuous build are I-builds.
David - Yes. Look through the dev list for notes from Naci. We'll fix the headings on the download pages to be more descriptive.
Arthur - Everyone is expected to do local builds and tests before releasing fixes so there should rarely be I-build failures.
Tim - There are also compile failures in the WSDL editor [3]
Keith - I'll resolve these.
David - I'd like to remind everyone to update their component page links for the current milestone plan to be M9. We also need to move the M9 builds to Eclipse 3.1.1 and our assocaited prereqs.
Jeffrey - I'll do it after release ship 3.1.1.
[action] Jeffrey to move M9 builds to Eclipse 3.1.1, etc. [4]
[1] http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/committers/drops/I-I20050929-200509291836/testResults/html/org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.tests_.html
[2] http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/committers/
[3] http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/committers/drops/I-I20050929-200509291836/compilelogs/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.wsdl.ui_0.7.1/wsdleditor.jar.bin.log
[4] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=111138
4. WTP 1.0 Performance - Jeffrey Liu
Jeffrey - The performance tests are back up.[1] See my note for the results. We have one regression in M8 but that doesn't mean we have acceptable performance. I'd like to propose that we create a set of policies to follow, e.g. like validators must be run on large workspaces, or editors must open and close many times to ensure no memory links. We'll also have tools to check for the test coverage. Comments?
Lawrence - What about integrated scenarios?
Tim - Individual components should have tests but we should also have large workspaces that are realistic.
Arthur - Where can we get realistic test cases?
Tim - We can combine the workspaces from each component.
Jeffrey - We can use the Web Service Explorer which is a large Web app. I will send out a proposal.
David - Tests cases won't necessarily improve performance. There are things we can do in our code, e.g. measuring validator performance. I'll post details.
Jeffrey - Do you think its worthwhile to publish a list of best practices? e.g. using the fastest Visitor pattern.
David - Maybe not worth publishing since it all boils down to the time and resource to fix the code.
Arthur - What about creating a Performance FAQ?
David - The Eclipse Platform has one which we could contribute to. [2] Also, I am having problem mapping back to the performance test case names from the results.
Jeffrey - I can add a page to the performance Web site that links to actual test.
[action] Jeffrey to improve linking of test results to test cases. [3]
[1] http://apps.eclipse.org/webtools_performance/web/getScenarios.jsp
[2] http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/performance/
[3] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=111141
5. WTP 1.0 API Scans - Jeffrey Liu
Jeffrey - Not much progress to report yet. I am porting the scans into the new builds framework. I expect to be ready next week.
6. WTP Features and Subsystems Status [1] - David Williams
David - I met with Chris last week and need to meet again with him and Chuck. No fundamental changes, just refinements. I'll work on the uncontentious Features first. I'll label the others as transitional. I need to update the document.
Arthur - What's the target completion?
David - Let's have M9 as the cutoff. Features will be frozen after M9.
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/development/arch_and_design/subsystems/SubsystemsAndFeatures.html
7. Flexible Project Development Status - Chuck Bridgham
Chuck - We had a meeting yesterday that proposed to restrict projects to have single components. This was a unaminous decision. I've sent the plan to the PMC list. Tomorrow I'll send a note describing the API changes, migration plan, and UI impact. This will help us in the long run and position us for new APIs in Eclipse 3.2.
8. Project Facets Development Status -Konstantin Komissarchik
Kosta - The Facet framework code has been released and is in the builds. The actual Facet definitions are in CVS but not released yet. Everyone should start testing. The renaming has been done (to Facets). There is a lot of UI improvement remaining.
Ted - Kathy posted an integration schedule.
Kathy - The Facet and Web Services teams have met to discuss this. We are meeting regularly on Mondays.
Arthur - Please post the call-in logistics to the dev list in case other affected parties want to participate.
9. Other Business - Open
David - We need to start reviewing our bugs more closely now.
Arthur - Yes. Let's make this a regular part of the 1.0 status segment of this meeting
David - There are four blockers. Let's review them now. 110229 [1] is owned by Lawrence.
Lawrence - I have fixed it. I just need to close it.
David - 110618 that Tim opened and assigned to Craig.
Tim - That's not a Blocker. I'll change the severity to Major.
David - 110903 opened by Thomas.
Ted - We've submitted a patch to Tim. Can you please review it.
Tim - I need to review the patch. I'm not sure that locking is the right solution.
David - 110972 against WebSphere Generic server.
Tim - That's not really a blocker. I'll talk to Brad Blancett who reported it.
David - Let's reduce the critical list by next week.
Ted - Maybe we should schedule continuous triage meetings. Perhaps by component.
David - This may not be necessary. Component leads should triage minor problems. We just need to focus on serious ones here.
Arthur - We'll be devoting more time to bugs in this meeting as we progress towards our release date. If that is inadequate then we can schedule more time. The meetings will go better if the component leads to triage preparation in advance of the status telecon. Then we can use the time to jst discuss serious problems as a team.
[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=110229
[2] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
[3] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=110903
[4] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=110972
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx