Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [wtp-pmc] regrets for Tuesday 6/14 PMC call

The PMC agreed to the versioning change (with the caveat that it occur this week) and your version change/process suggestion below (in bold) on the call this morning. Thanks for the status report and bringing these items up,

 

-t

 

From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:42 PM
To: WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)
Subject: [wtp-pmc] regrets for Tuesday 6/14 PMC call

 


I've just realized I have an appointment that will prevent me from joining this Tuesday's call.

Arch Status:

        Eclipse platform review sure was tame :) [as it should be]
        Open House's continuing ... one left this Thursday at 12 noon EDT (J2EE  Models and Flexible Project).
        4 plugins reduced/combined recently -- teeth pulling to continue.
        I opened many bugs on components mixing UI and Model functionality
        I opened many bugs on components that have trivial (over complicated) dependancies
        I've marked as 'major' those that should get straight for .7, 'normal' ones can wait.
           (important to get this straight to have any chance of having feature definitions).
                We are pretty clean towards removing JDT dependancy from WST, except for JEM (in progress).

        I recommend we move plugins version to 0.7 soon (this week), see Bug 99829
           (I did mine, to test, with little pain).
           
        I suggest following procedure/practice for current bugs:
                mass change of all current '1.0' version to 0.7.
                except for "enhancements" since those are probably correct at 1.0.
                this will change a few too many, but those could be changed back by owner
                [only other option is to let each component owner do their own?]
                                unspecified should stay unspecified.

                        I think the rule is reporter can assign a version if found on a version
                        (which doesn't apply to us yet).
                        And owner can assign to a version once fixed in that version.
                        (so "unspecified" means "unknown" when fix will come, and just because
                        its not in .7, it does not mean it will be in 1.0).

Thanks, feel free to ask/let me know if you need anything else.

David 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join CEO Alfred Chuang and CTO Mark Carges on June 15 for a unique online 
event, giving you the first look at a new category of enterprise software 
built specifically for Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA).

Register Now.  It's Free!

http://www.bea.com/events/june15

Back to the top