| RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] RE: Callisto Meeting: 4/26/06 |
|
TPTP submitted all Callisto related
Contribution Questionnaires by end of last week. I completed action item related to
updating the RC version information. For TPTP project, the Wiki now has correct
RC version information for TPTP project. Yes, I will keep this in synch with TPTP
release plan pages. Thanks, -Sri From:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug Raw minutes. Please correct as necessary. The
action items are in red.
For those projects not able to attend the call, please provide status on items
#2 and #6. Attending David Williams Doug Schaefer (CDT) Kevin Haaland (Platform) Paul Styles Hubert Leung (TPTP) Sri Doddapaneni (TPTP) Ian Skerrett Dave Steinberg (EMF) Doug Gaff Rich Gronback (GMF) John Graham (DTP) Wenfeng Li (BIRT) Regrets Bjorn Freeman-Benson Steve Shaw (GEF) Tyler Thessin Tim Wagner (WTP) Absent David Orm (VE) Minutes 1. RC1 status We’re ready to announce. David has tested
several mirrors, and others are also verifying now. David will send Ian the link and Ian will post. 2. RC2 status for each project Platform – on track for Friday CDT – ready for Monday or Tuesday TPTP – no new changes for RC2 on TPTP. Hubert
needs to confirm with Sri, but schedule reflects this. EMF – ready for Monday GMF – on track for the 5th DTP – on track for early next week BIRT – on track 3. Callisto Release Candidate status tracking http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Callisto_Plan_Summary Discussion. Why
don’t the Callisto RC’s line up with Platform RC’s?
David: not all project plans could follow the Platform RC’s
exactly, and not all projects want to do weekly drops like the Platform.
The primary confusion (evident on this page) is the version numbers of
the releases in the dependent projects. However, it doesn’t make
sense for projects to bump their version numbers it they are putting up the
same bits as the previous RC. The version number should only be changed
if code was changed to work with the newer platform. Most importantly,
projects should attempt to also release the head stream into each Callisto RC
in order to deal with integration issues early. AI: Each project lead will update this plan summary with your intended
drop numbers. Some of the version information is currently missing. Policy: Project leads will always keep this plan in sync with their
individual project plans as changes occur (version numbers, etc.) and will send
an email to cross-project-issues-dev to inform others of the change. More Discussion. If
the platform has to fix a critical bug past RC4, is there enough room for other
projects to verify the change? Are downstream projects comfortable with
this? General consensus is yet. Agreement: after Callisto RC3, project leads will
announce bugs to be fixed on cross-project-issues-dev list to raise visibility.
David will update the summary page to reflect this. RC6 – there’s not much wiggle room on the end
date. Should we keep RC6? Kevin suggested that we might drop it,
but several other projects felt they really needed the final release
candidate. The suggestion was to monitor this closely and make sure the
fixes towards the end are few and very safe. Note that the last possible
day someone can do a build is 28-Jun. The goal for all projects should be
no changes required in RC6. 4. Tim’s comments over email about OOM errors and
Performance problems. Each project needs to be testing with everything.
David’s recommendation was to have everything installed in your
development environment while you’re working on the latest of your own
bits. In this configuration, folks on WTP are noticing a gradual rise in
memory consumption. 5. All-in-one zip proposal: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/callisto-files/callisto-download-proposal.php Discuss when Bjorn returns. Question: are the
companies listed on this page signed up for this yet, or are these just
exampes? 6. Mega Release Review: Contribution Questionnaires
due yesterday. Did all projects get theirs in? CDT – ok TPTP – ? EMF – ok MGF – ok DTP – ok, but one in discussion WTP – ok BIRT – ok 7. Pack 200 update. http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Update_Site_Optimization
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Pack200 David explained in more detail to the group. A summary
digest for entire site will be created. Pack 200 is a JRE 1.5 utility,
but it doesn’t require 1.5 code. The compression is custom-made for
java files, so it’s much better than standard zip. If we apply this
to the Callisto jars, the jars must be “conditioned” prior to
posting to the update site. Is this a concern for other projects, and are
other projects willing to run the conditioning before posting? We can
release with a partial set of projects using this if desired. Platform
and BIRT think they can do it. CDT doesn’t think they have time to
do it. This needs to be tested by projects ASAP if it’s going to be
used. There are clear bandwidth benefits for Eclipse and download time
benefits for customers. Continue
this discussion thread over email. 6. SDK’s – email from Randy Smith – how do
customers get these? In discussion on the dev list. We didn’t get to
it today. From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug Hi folks, Bjorn asked me to run the meeting in his absence. http://www.eclipse.org/projects/callisto.php 613.287.8000 -or- 866.362.7064 Agenda: 1. RC2 status for each project (due 4/28) 2. Tim’s questions about OOM errors and Performance
problems. 3. All-in-one zip proposal: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/callisto-files/callisto-download-proposal.php 4. Mega Release Review: Contribution Questionnaires
due yesterday. 5. Pack 200 update 6. Anything I missed. Doug G DSDP |