Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] TPTP and the Galileo Train requirements.

Thanks for the feedback (and the reminder to use TPTP for performance
testing with support).  I've added these to our next call agenda:

My personal thoughts:

* N&N by RC - seems fine, but there's no time like when a feature's complete
to take a quick screen capture (if applicable) and write up a few words on
the wiki

* A single point and separate capability definition is perfect.

* Not sure on the last one, so hopefully we can come to some conclusion on
the next call.


On 11/19/08 6:32 PM, "Oliver E Cole" <oec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>     There has been much discussion regarding the Must and Should do's
> for Galileo.   At today's TPTP PMC call, we went over each of the Must
> and Shoulds with regard to TPTP and also with regard to the others on
> the train.
>     We weighed the effort for each against the expected benefits for
> each.  Overall, we thought the list was fine. We have the following
> comments:
>      New and Noteworthy - the bugzilla
> ( says that these
> are done on each milestone.  The Requirements page
> (
> pation) 
> says RC (Release Candidate).   TPTP agrees with this for the Release
> Candidate but it seems a bit much to have it as a must do for each and
> every milestone.
>     Capabilities - TPTP will provide a single point of capability 'TPTP'
> in a plugin that will enable user to disable/enable TPTP UI
> contributions (import/export, launch configurations, views, preferences,
> and perspective).  254151 is already opened by Anne for such
> requirement.   Does this single point comply with the must do?
>    Also, we have a question regarding dependencies as TPTP has features
> that depend on other projects (e.g., Profile on server has a dependency
> on WTP).   Do we leave the choice to the user or do we act smart and
> enable all the optional dependencies for the user?
>     Performance - Please add that TPTP is appropriate for profiling and
> performance work.  As you know, we are putting resources into the
> community profiler and this is exactly the kind of thing that we are
> trying to encourage.  We will do good support.
> --oec

Back to the top