Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[cross-project-issues-dev] RE: Callisto Meeting: 4/26/06

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.



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)



Bjorn Freeman-Benson

Steve Shaw (GEF)

Tyler Thessin

Tim Wagner (WTP)



David Orm (VE)




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


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:


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.


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
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:13 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Callisto Meeting: 4/26/06


Hi folks,


Bjorn asked me to run the meeting in his absence.

613.287.8000 -or- 866.362.7064
passcode 874551#




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:

4. Mega Release Review:  Contribution Questionnaires due yesterday.

5. Pack 200 update

6. Anything I missed.


Doug G




Back to the top