|[stp-dev] IRC log 10may06|
(no chat topic is set) [16:43] pombreda joined the chat room. [16:54] davidbrpr joined the chat room. [16:56] askehill joined the chat room. [17:00] oisin: hi guys [17:00] Karlr__ joined the chat room. [17:00] oisin: we'll hang on for a little while for others to join... [17:02] RobCernich joined the chat room. [17:02] oisin: couple more minutes guys... [17:05] dparikh joined the chat room. [17:05] oisin: ok let's go [17:06] oisin: I've got 4 things on my list: [17:06] jrohn joined the chat room. [17:06] oisin: 1. open bugs (yes we have them [17:06] oisin: 2. proposal for a semi-regular committer call [17:07] oisin: 3. some questions about the SAF contrib[17:07] oisin: 4. a question about what is the general approach to consume pieces of other eclipse projects
[17:07] oisin: any other items? [17:08] oisin: ok. [17:09] oisin: seeing none... [17:09] oisin: 1. Open bugs[17:09] oisin: There are 5 open bugs in the 'zilla at the moment - all are related to the website [17:10] oisin: 136552 is about lack of content on the SOAS subproject page : https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=136552 [17:11] oisin: I would be happy to help out with this one once some content is forthcoming [17:11] oisin: 136557 is about lack of content for BPMN : https:// bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=136557 [17:12] oisin: We're not sure what the status is with those guys as they seem to have disappeared for the moment. [17:13] oisin: both 136559 and 136561 are skinning jobs, which are assigned to me, but I haven't had a chance to get to them yet [17:13] oisin: 138155 is about updating doco wrt STP core that was reported by Michael E : https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi? id=138155 [17:14] oisin: I'm not sure if it is still valid or not - he is not on the chat
[17:14] dparikh: I will take a look at that. [17:14] oisin: thanks, devang! [17:15] oisin: big hint to rob and karl wrt 136552 [17:15] Karlr__: Yep I got that [17:15] oisin: thank you sir [17:16] oisin: 2. Proposal for call[17:16] oisin: ok, some of the other projects in eclipse have been known to have a 'committers call' [17:17] oisin: this is essentially a concall that's held every two weeks or so and is intended to supplement the existing communications methods [17:17] oisin: the reasoning behind this is that there may be issues that really need a full-duplex high-bandwidth discussion to be had [17:17] oisin: and maybe these issues don't get enough of an airing when merely applying email and IRC [17:19] oisin: I'm looking for a set of opinions on having one of these calls ourselves - they will be focussed, with an agenda [17:19] oisin: actually, to make things easier, is there anyone here now that would object to such a thing? [17:20] davidbrpr: what don't we simply arrange concall if and when they are need instead of puuting a schedule for them? [17:22] davidbrpr: not that i am against it but i just don't really see what it brings us [17:22] oisin: that's a fair point, I'm thinking that if we don't have anything to have a call about there is no point in having one [17:23] oisin: but I will say that if we have lots of things to talk about we are better to have one call at a set date and time and talk about them all rather than have separate calls for each thing
[17:24] oisin: this allows people to plan the schedule a bit better[17:25] davidbrpr: and it would mean that we could have to wait up to 2 weeks for a talk to fit the schedules
[17:25] oisin:[17:26] davidbrpr: just curious but how many times have such concall been necessary?
[17:26] davidbrpr: aren't they more the exception than the rule?[17:27] oisin: you mean how many times have such a concall been necessary but because there has not been such a facility has those concalls not taken place? [17:27] oisin: i get the impression that we should just table this one for the moment and move on
[17:28] oisin: ok to move on to 3?[17:30] oisin: I'm in the process of looking at the SAF code and doc, but I guess the high-level confirmation I'm looking for is that this is aimed at the people who are writing visual tools on top of t he assembly model?
[17:32] oisin: one for the dev list I guess![17:34] dparikh: You are right oisin it is there to help people write tools on top of assembly model
[17:34] dparikh: I would not say that it is just for visual tools.[17:34] oisin: devang - there is a .ui. part in the package names, does this imply a visual part to it? [17:36] dparikh: there is no visual parts but that plugin has ui dependancy [17:40] dparikh: UI contribution allows SCA extension providers to define how an instance of their extension is viewed and edited by the user [17:40] oisin: ok I guess I need to study it a bit more -- while the doco is all there, is there a chance you could give us a 'big picture' summary - meaning sketch out how the core parts and saf all hinge together?
[17:41] oisin: maybe not right now, but on the website/dev list [17:42] dparikh: Sebastian Carbajales will be right person to do so. [17:42] oisin: great - I'll get in touch with him[17:43] oisin: finally -- STP has always said that it will take a dependency on stuff from other projects when it makes sense to do so. We've talked about pieces from WTP, STP, etc. [17:45] oisin: i had a question about this, but I've answered it myself -- we approach these things on a case-by-case basis
[17:46] RobCernic1 joined the chat room. [17:48] oisin: ok, is there anything else to mention now?[17:50] dparikh left the chat room. ("Chatzilla 0.9.72 [Firefox 126.96.36.199/2006042618]")
[17:50] oisin: if not, we will leave it there for today, thanks all.
Back to the top