[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[wtp-dev] Minutes of the WTP Status Telecon, 2005-09-29
|
Attendees:
Amy Wu
Arthur Ryman
Chris Brealey
Chuck Bridgham
David Williams
Der-Ping Chou
Geni Hutton
Gorkem Ercan
Jeffrey Liu
John Lanuti
Kathy Chan
Keith Chong
Kosta Komissarchik
Larry Dunnell
Lawrence Mandel
Nitin Dahyabhai
Paul Meijer
Phil Avery
Sheila Sholars
Ted Bashor
Tim deBoer
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
| 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... |
Arthur - All components
lead that plan to publish API in WTP 1.0 should create bugs and mark them
as blocking the master API bug for either WST or JST. When you have done
that, update the action item for WST or JST and reassign it to the next
component lead. Can everyone finish this action by next meeting?
All - Yes.
David - The benefit of
doing this was to support automatic generation of Milestone Plans. Are
they available yet?
Arthur - In progress.
That's action item 110312. My target is by next week.
[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 0.7.1 Status
- Jeffrey Liu
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