[wtp-dev] Minutes of WTP Status Telecon, 2005-07-21
Naci Dai, Ted Bashor, Paul Meijer, Tim
Wagner, Der-Ping Chou, Rob Frost, Jeffrey Liu, Craig Salter, Lawrence Mandel,
Raghu Srinivasan, Susan Yeshin, Larry Dunnell, Tim deBoer, David Williams,
John Lanuti, Chuck Bridgham, Phillip Avery, Amy Wu, Nitin Dahyabhai, Kathy
Chan, Sheila Sholars
1. Review of Open Action Items - Lawrence Mandel
Refer to Bugzilla .
David:Jeff's queries include reminds and laters.
Jeff: [ACTION] queries include reminds and later. I'll
fix this up.
*note: Bug 105217 opened by Lawrence to track this action.
Jeff: As far as verifications go I'd say it's safe to
say if the originator doesn't verify after 14 days you can take the lead
and verify yourself.
David: Verify while testing even if you weren't the originator.
Lawrence: All component leads should bug originators to
verify their components resolved defects. Let's get the unverified count
||[action] All Component Owners to Add Rationale to Defered...
||[action] All Component Owners to Ask Reporters to Verify
||[action] All WTP Developers Should Verify Their Resolved
2. RC2 Plan/Bug Status - Jeffrey Liu
All component leads need to vote on RC2. Again, here's our endgame plan:
Tim (Server): Couple major bugs that were just opened that
I need to check first. 104641, 104445.
Jeff: Please look at them today and see if they can be fixed in RC2.
Craig (XML): Things look good. Couple fixes going in the next hour and
then we're good.
Kathy (WS): We have 1 outstanding upgrade to axis 1.2.1, which we're in
the middle of. I will know better by the end of today.
Jeff: Will this be in for RC2?
Kathy: Yes if no major problems are found during testing.
Jeff: Will you test until 5PM today?
Kathy: We will make the decision today.
Jeff: David, if WS checks in a change will a build get spun tonight?
David: Last build is planned for 8pm. Don't need to vote on RC2. Need PMC
approval to get anything in starting tomorrow.
Jeff: So what's the requirement for RC2? Should all P1 and P2 bugs be fixed?
David: Just if no one objects to declare this as RC2.
Jeff: Anybody nervous about declaring RC2?
David (SSE): We're in good shape. A few bugs we may propose to the PMC.
Nothing to hold up the release.
Chuck (J2EE): We're pretty much ready. A few fixes to go in today.
Jeff: Right now there are 5 P2 bugs. No P1's.
Chuck: I'll move the doc defect down to P3.
[ACTION] Kathy to get Peter to review bug 103633
and provide new justification.
*note: Bug 105218 opened by Lawrence to track this action.
Tim W: I see 104001 which is not on the P1/P2 list. Why
Jeff: 104001 is not targetted to M6.
Tim: This should be cleaned up.
*note: As of sending these minutes there are no open, assigned, or reopened
bugs with targets of M3, M4, or M5.
- RC2 produced
- P1/2 only can be addressed
- All checkins must have Bugzilla entry
- Component lead and PMC member must code review
- Changes communicated to wtp-dev mailing list
Additional RCs as directed by PMC:
- P1 only can be addressed
- Component lead and PMC must approve all changes
- All changes communicated to wtp-dev
1. Review of P1/P2 bugs targeted to 0.7. We have zero
P1 and four P2.
2. Review of blocking/critical/major bugs targeted to 0.7.
3. Review of deferred serious bugs 
4. Review of resolved bugs backlog 
Ted: Should P3's be triaged?
David: blocker/crit/maj should have P4. I think it's alright
to have normal P2'1 that we're not fixing.
Jeff: I think you're confusing version and target. The
version means what version it was found in not when it will be fixed.
Tim W: Why do we see things set to version 1.0?
David: I don't think this is clear. Base eclipse doesn't
use this consistently. It's not a very meaningful field. Both originator
and developer can set this.
Tim D: The version should just give an indication of where
problems are found.
Naci: Not really. Really each I-build should be there.
Really we shouldn't accept a bug unless it has a version.
Ted: I think it would be more clear if version became
version found and target is target to be fixed.
Tim D: Should only target a defect when it is know when
it will be fixed. There are 34 defects still targeted for 0.7
Tim W: Those should be cleaned up.
Jeff: I think we need a doc about this.
David: There is a doc but this isn't handled well. Someone
can make a contribution to fix this. For 0.7 we should make target unspecified.
Tim W: The target for Monday should be if I do a query
of M6 or less the total should be very low.
Lawrence : I'll open an action for everyone to change
*note: Bug 105219 opened by Lawrence to track this action.
Rob: Should we give the new bugs an explicit target?
Tim D: Eclipse works the opposite way. Assume nothing
is fixed until a target is set.
David: Just to clarify, from the PMC meeting if component
leads have a fix tomorrow or later should they send it to the PMC or just
Tim W: Send it to the wtp-pmc mailing list. There should
be a defect # with an attached fix and justification.
John: Is there a formal test plan for tomorrow?
David: No. The assumption is all component teams should
complete their M5 test plans and verifying bugs.
Der-Ping: There are some TVT defects for RDB which I don't
think we can contain for 0.7? Do I need to explain this?
Jeff: TVT defects are user impact because it affects non-English
users. They should be treated as other user impact bugs. If you can't contain
it state the reason in the bug.
3. Update Manager Site - Jeffrey Liu
Jeff: I sent out a note about update
manager. Comments/suggestions? Two update sites, one for release and one
Craig: What does Eclipse do?
Jeff: Eclipse has only for releases.
Naci: I don't think we need one for
milestones. Maybe for maintenance releases.
Jeff: We can put those in release update
site. The milestone update site was for users that want an easy way to
Lawrence: Would we need to update the
version numbers on milestones?
Jeff: I have a script that handles that.
Naci: When do we get rid of milestones?
Tim W: Post 1.0 we can drop it, possibly
David: I saw a note that they can archive
the milestones but take them off the main build page so they're not distributed
Tim W: That sounds good. I don't like
the idea of not using mirror space for this.
Lawrence: Does eclipse have an update
site we should use?
Jeff: Eclipse has a site which we can
submit a request to be a part of. Other projects have their own so I think
we should do both.
David: I think EMF is the exception
by having their own.
Jeff: EMF and UML have their own. Do
you know if they have to maintain it?
David: I think they maintain it. It's
just what they distribute.
Lawrence: Do the project update sites
have the same drivers as the Eclipse update site.
Jeff: EMF contains the milestones as
Lawrence: If we're just putting releases
on the site do we need our own site?
Jeff: I think it's confusing to have
it as part of the Eclipse update site as it doesn't say WTP. Just by looking
at the name you might think it's just the Eclipse update site.
Lawrence: What does TPTP do?
Jeff: Nothing yet.
David: I'll side with Lawrence and say
that we don't need our own unless there is a concrete reason. Anyone else
have an opinion?
Craig: Why do we need it?
Jeff: For clarity. Just to show up in
the update manager.
Lawrence: I think we should just go
with the Eclipse site until a reason comes up otherwise? Any objections?
Tim W: No. I think it's a good idea
to keep it simple.
David: We should test it next week.
Jeff did you give directions?
Jeff: The directions are for RC1. Should
I setup an update site for RC2?
David: Yes, at least so we can test
Jeff: OK. I'll test the update manager
[action] Jeff to test the update manager
*note: Bug 105221 opened by Lawrence to track this
4. Other Items - Open
Susan: I have a doc update. Every component
has infopops ready. I'm working on legal text and will be committing today.
All components except RDB and WS have docs in the help system. WS may get
docs on Monday. RDB will be a little later.
Der-Ping: Is everything clear now with
the RDB writers?
Susan: Any new function in WTP does
not yet have docs. ex. flexible project. Please open bugs for whatever
you know that's new.
Lawrence: That's a request of everyone.
Bugs should be opened against the documentation component.
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814 Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920