[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[wtp-dev] Minutes of WTP Status Telecon, 2005-10-06


Attendees:
Amy Wu
Arthur Ryman
Chris Brealey
Chuck Bridgham
Craig Salter
David Williams
Jeffrey Liu
John Lanuti
Kathy Chan
Kosta Komissarchik
Larry Dunnell
Lawrence Mandel
Naci Dai
Nitin Dahyabhai
Phil Avery
Sheila Sholars
Tim deBoer
Tim Wagner

See WTP Status Telecons [1] for more information.

[1] http://eclipse.org/webtools/development/status-telecons/index.html


Minutes

1. Review of Open Action Items [1] - Arthur Ryman

110309 enh P3 PC cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx NEW [action] Add WTP 1.0 JST Component API Plan Items to Mas...
110308 enh P3 PC csalter@xxxxxxxxxx NEW [action] Add WTP 1.0 WST Component API Plan Items to Mas...
110312 enh P3 PC ryman@xxxxxxxxxx ASSI [action] Automatically Merge Bugzilla Work Items with XML...
111141 nor P3 PC jeffliu@xxxxxxxxxx NEW [action] Indicate JUnit Test Name with Performance Results


[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=casesubstring&short_desc=%5Baction%5D&product=Web+Tools&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

2. WTP 1.0 M9 Status - David Williams

Review bug backlog, builds, and plans.

David - We have 2 blockers. Let's review them.

Chuck - Bug 111253. This is a Linux only problem. We are investigating.

Naci - Bug 110972. WAS generic server adapeter doesn't support EARs. I assigned this to Sinan. It is missing function.

Arthur - This is not a blocker since there is a workaround. It should be reclassified to Major.

David - Tim and Chuck, how is the change to .deployables going?

John - The builders have been removed and the change has been released to the the in-progress I-build.

Tim - Tomcat should work on Web projects but not utility projects. Generic servers should work in the current I-build.

David - If this can't be resolved we should declare the I-build and note the missing function.

Tim - Web projects should work but not utility projects for this week.

3. WTP 1.0 Performance - Jeffrey Liu

Jeffrey - I tried Tim's large workspace but can't reproduce the problem. I need to recreate with Tim. I'll add it to the performance test bucket this week. We also need to have single JARs and manifests for most plug-ins. We are currently about 60% done.

[action] Jeffrey to add Tim's large workspace to to the performance test bucket.

Craig -XML tools is OK except for Xerces which needs to be left as a loose JAR.

Jeffrey - In general we need to leave third party code as loose JARs.

[action] Jeffrey to create plug-in manifests and single JAR packaging for all plug-ins except third-party code..

Arthur - We should be using the appropriate keywords in bugzilla, e.g. performance for performance problems. This will help us do queries and reports.

4. WTP 1.0 API Scans - Jeffrey Liu

Jeffrey - The API scans have been ported to the new build process. We should do the scans on the published I-builds only, i.e. now the continuous builds.

Jeffrey - Are the component.xml files up to date?

Arthur - They need to reflect the current API plans. I'll open a bug for each component that plans to publish an API.

[action] Arthur to opens bugs for all components that have APIs in WTP 1.0 to update their component.xml files.

Craig - Aren't the component.xml files obsolete? Aren't we using source code comments?

Arthur - No. The source comments are processed and the component.xml files will be automatically generated after Jeffrey implements the new scanning tools. However, we can't wait for that. Just update the component.xml files manually for now. BTW. the name of these files will be changed to api.xml.

Craig - What is the policy on the use of the internal provisional package naming conventions?

Arthur - The feedback we received is that adopters found it very disruptive to have to react to a package renaming when the API is declared. Instead, we will abandon the internal provisional naming convention. You need to decide if the code is nearly API or not, e.g. will it be API for WTP 1.0 or 1.5. If it will be API, then use a non-internal package name and leave a "scary" comment [1] in the code until it is in-plan for a release. If the code will not be API by WTP 1.5, then use internal in the package name.

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/faq/CommitterFAQ.html#source_4

5. WTP Features and Subsystems Status [1] - David Williams

David - Not much progress on the build or document this week. We are in good shape in general, however, there may be some issues remaining in WTP 1.0 and we'll fix those in WTP 1.5.

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/development/arch_and_design/subsystems/SubsystemsAndFeatures.html

6. Flexible Project Development Status - Chuck Bridgham

Chuck - I made the changes to enforce single component per project last week.  It's going well. There may be some additional changes in reaction to Facets.

7. Project Facets Development Status -Konstantin Komissarchik

Kosta - I have shredded the base Facet plug-in. The Tomcat Facet is in progress. We are holding weekly integration meetings, normally on Monday (except next week on Tuesday due to Canadian Thanksgiving.)

8. Other Business - Open

Jeffrey - I'd like to discuss a WTP 1.5 stream. I posted a proposal and got feedback. I think we should have a 1.5 stream prior to 1.0 shipping.We would build 1.5 from HEAD using Eclipse 3.2. We just need to branch the build scripts.

Naci - Building won't be a problem but eventually the build will fail and then we'll have to start branching the plug-ins. I suggest we wait till M9 or 1.0 before we move on to 3.2. We should try local builds on Eclipse 3.2 and give feedback.

David - Why are we talking about building on Eclipse 3.2? Has anyone used 3.2 for development? Builds are things we provide other teams. I suggest after M9 we start 3.2 builds.

Arthur - The other reason for a branch is to enable the development of items that are deferred to WTP 1.5 but require changes in WTP 1.0. Do we have any cases of that?

Craig - Yes, we are deferring the XSD refactoring work to WTP 1.5. Ella can create a branch.

Jeffrey - There may be WTP adopters that need 3.2.

Arthur - In view of the significant amount of work required to complete M9, we should focus on the high priority items. In the absence of concrete requirements for a 3.2 build from adopters, we should defer this until after M9.

[resolution] Wait for concrete requriements from adopters for Eclipse 3.2 builds, and then revisit the situation after M9.


David - Thanks to all developers for reducing the number of compiler warnings from 1200 to 400. I'll work with remaining teams to get this number down to zero.


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