Skip to main content

Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Archived » Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » IRC transcript 01mar06
IRC transcript 01mar06 [message #373952] Wed, 01 March 2006 17:56
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by:

[16:53] jrohn joined the chat room.
[16:56] DavidBosschaert joined the chat room.
[16:57] oisin: hi guys
[16:58] DavidBosschaert: Just us 3 at the mo...
[16:58] alainow joined the chat room.
[16:58] oisin: I have 6 time readers around my desk and they read from
1657 to 1703 - very annoying!
[16:58] oisin: hi alain
[16:58] alainow: hi everybody
[16:58] DavidBosschaert: Hi
[16:58] jrohn: Hi
[17:00] AMiguel joined the chat room.
[17:00] oisin: hi antony
[17:01] oisin: I would like to hang on until such a point that we have a
few more in the channel, if that is ok with you all
[17:01] alainow: ok
[17:01] AMiguel: Hi, ok by me
[17:04] sdaume joined the chat room.
[17:05] RobCernich joined the chat room.
[17:05] RobCernich left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[17:06] oisin: Let's see if Rob returns to us and we shall kick off
[17:06] RobCernich joined the chat room.
[17:06] oisin: hi rob
[17:06] RobCernich: hello
[17:07] oisin: let's get started - I sent out a very terse agenda to the
stp-dev list earlier today
[17:07] oisin: I'll repeat it here
[17:07] oisin: 1) code review issue
[17:07] oisin: 2) discussion on commit decision process
[17:08] oisin: 3) eclipse con meetup
[17:08] oisin: 4) PMC related updates
[17:08] oisin: 5) feedback to SCA development process
[17:09] oisin: the floor is open for additional items.....
[17:10] oisin: seeing no items...
[17:11] oisin: 1) code review issue --- suggest we have a vote to settle
this now. proposal is that PMC will neither mandate nor make any
statement about encouraging code review.
[17:11] oisin: anyone object to vote?
[17:12] DavidBosschaert: Nope, vote is fine by me.
[17:12] RobCernich: works for me
[17:12] sdaume: fine
[17:12] oisin: seeing no objections... let's go: gimme a +1 or a -1
[17:12] AMiguel: fine
[17:12] sdaume: +1
[17:12] AMiguel: +1
[17:12] jrohn: +1
[17:13] oisin: +1
[17:13] alainow: +1
[17:13] DavidBosschaert: 0 - would have preferred a statement about it,
but can live without.
[17:13] oisin: thanks, David
[17:14] oisin: declare a consensus on that topic
[17:14] DavidBosschaert: I will update the commit page accordingly.
[17:14] oisin: thanks you David
[17:15] oisin: 2) discussion on commit decision process
[17:15] oisin: who wants to kick this one off?
[17:15] DavidBosschaert: Are you referring to the contribution process
of existing code?
[17:16] oisin: no
[17:16] AMiguel: the decision as to whether any code commit should
happen or not?
[17:16] oisin: yes
[17:16] oisin: consult _TopLevel_Charter_v1.0.php
[17:17] oisin: look for 'retroactive'
[17:17] oisin: this process is plastic and can change depending on the
lifecycle point of the subproject
[17:17] DavidBosschaert: Ah, yes. Retroactive/Proactive/Three Positive
[17:18] oisin: for example: initial contributions, use retroactive
approach, further contributions use three+ approach
[17:19] oisin: rob, stefan: any guidance w.r.t. how your existing
projects approach this?
[17:21] oisin: all: any strong feelings on this?
[17:21] RobCernich: we do not have any similar process in DTP connectivity
[17:22] oisin: implication that all commits go straight in, rob?
[17:22] RobCernich: right
[17:22] RobCernich: if people have problems we deal with them at that time
[17:22] RobCernich: note, most of the code was contributed during
project formation
[17:23] RobCernich: so, i guess you'd say we've been operating under the
proactive process
[17:23] RobCernich: permission is granted first, in principle
[17:24] RobCernich: enhancements and code changes are discussed in
weekly committer meetings
[17:24] RobCernich: so everyone is aware of what is going on and why
[17:24] AMiguel: Three positive would mean every code commit would need
to be proposed and then voted on?
[17:25] RobCernich: my opinion, as far as vetoing goes, the vetoer
should specify their concern and what needs to be done to address that
[17:25] oisin: I think the implication is there Antony
[17:25] sdaume: i think there is essentially a retroactive approach in
place in TPTP although I do not think that this is explicitly stated or
[17:25] RobCernich: of course, the pmc can always take action
[17:26] sdaume: if we absolutely want to support a praticulat appraoch I
would opt for the retroactive in the initial phase
[17:26] alainow: sorry but I have to leave - bye
[17:26] AMiguel: I would suggest retroactive for both initial
contributions and future contributions
[17:27] sdaume: it will allow quick contributions in the initial phase
[17:27] alainow left the chat room. ("I don't like you. But Bersirc 2.2
does. Try it out now. [ - Open Source IRC ]")
[17:27] oisin: I support retroactive for the initial contribs
[17:28] AMiguel: Anybody against retroactive for inital contrib?
[17:28] DavidBosschaert: Fine with me too.
[17:28] AMiguel: Seems like we have agreement for initial contribs
[17:29] RobCernich: me too
[17:29] AMiguel: What are peoples preferences for subsequent contribs?
[17:29] oisin: (decision) retroactive commit model for initial contribs
[17:29] sdaume: lets be clear though that it will not be possible to
state that this only applies to initial contribs as long as we have not
clarfied initial milestones and project phases
[17:30] oisin: good point from stefan
[17:30] AMiguel: Anyone against retroactive for subsequent contribs?
[17:31] sdaume: so we should be suggesting this approach without
qualifying it and we can obviously change this at a later stage
[17:31] oisin: +1
[17:31] sdaume: if people wish
[17:31] RobCernich: agreed
[17:31] DavidBosschaert: +1
[17:31] jrohn: +1
[17:31] oisin: (decision) retroactive commit model in place until such
point as it is useful to change it
[17:32] oisin: shall we move on to item 3) ?
[17:33] oisin: 3) eclipse con meetup
[17:34] RobCernich: when and where?
[17:34] sdaume: any suggestions as to whether we will be able during the
conference or if we have to find a date before or after ?
[17:34] sdaume: should we plan for a full day / half day ?
[17:35] RobCernich: during or one of the evenings would be best for me
[17:35] oisin: are people mostly travelling on friday?
[17:35] sdaume: not sure yet
[17:36] oisin: just looking at the 'con schedule... monday is free from
1800 on
[17:36] AMiguel: I know my flight is on friday, not sure what time
[17:36] DavidBosschaert: Our flight is on Friday at 19.30 from SFO.
[17:37] oisin: tuesday is packed full of receptions from 1700 till 2200
[17:37] oisin: wednesday ditto
[17:37] sdaume: if we want to go for an evening meeting I would suggest
Monday or Wednesday
[17:37] RobCernich: monday is the night of the members meet and greet
[17:38] oisin: can everyone take a look at their diaries and see how
they are fixed for Friday *morning*
[17:38] RobCernich: i'm leaving thurs night
[17:39] AMiguel: I'm not sure if my flight is AM or PM on friday
[17:39] DavidBosschaert: Fri morning would work fine for me.
[17:39] jrohn: My flight is early Friday AM.
[17:40] oisin: we are homing in on wednesday evening it looks like
[17:41] oisin: ok I propose we get together at 1730 on wednesday for a
[17:42] sdaume: +1
[17:42] oisin: are people comfortable about making a call on this now,
or will we take it back to the list?
[17:42] RobCernich: works for me
[17:42] RobCernich: +1
[17:42] oisin: +1
[17:42] jrohn: +1
[17:43] AMiguel: +1
[17:43] DavidBosschaert: +1
[17:43] oisin: we have a room request in - I will take action item to
nail it to this time and place
[17:44] oisin: (decision) STP F2F @ eclipsecon Wed 22 @ 1730 room tbd
[17:44] oisin: ok 4) PMC updates
[17:44] oisin: this is just around personnel changes
[17:45] oisin: and is FYI since not much is happening officially due to
eclipsecon frenzy
[17:45] oisin: Christophe has been replaced by Alain
[17:46] oisin: Carl has been replaced by Oisin
[17:46] oisin: Carl is still on PMC at this moment in time at least
until official hand over
[17:47] oisin: 5) feedback to SCA development process
[17:48] oisin: during our previous f2f there was concern about basing
the soa system stuff off the SCA assembly model as it was a moving target
[17:48] oisin: SCA assembly spec group has got three persons that will
feed back input to the spec progress
[17:49] oisin: these are: Oisin Hurley, Ken Tam and Dan Berg
[17:49] oisin: so if there are questions or things bugging you about the
spec get it to one of these guys
[17:50] oisin: my list is done. anything else?
[17:51] sdaume: we should post the IRC details on the list again
[17:51] sdaume: hopefully this will result in a bigger turnout
[17:51] oisin: ok stefan, I will do that.
[17:52] sdaume: until next week then
[17:52] oisin: David, when you are updating the commit page can you put
in a sentence regarding the retroactive commit approach that we are
taking for the time being and link the eclipse charter?
[17:53] RobCernich: bye
[17:53] RobCernich left the chat room.
[17:53] sdaume left the chat room.
[17:53] DavidBosschaert: Yup, no problem.
[17:53] DavidBosschaert: Bye
[17:53] oisin: thanks, see y'all

Oisin Hurley
Principal Engineer, IONA
Previous Topic:IRC transcript 01mar06
Next Topic:Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Designer team
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Thu Jun 21 16:39:30 GMT 2018

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02185 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software

Back to the top