Attending: Chris, Eugene, KathyChan, Oliver, Ernest, Paul, Joanna
Any objections to last week summary?
Anyone have agenda items to promote because they need to leave early?
How are we on 4.5.2 Delivery
We discussed the 4.5.2 delivery. Paul gave a basic summary.
- First test pass is done. 100% complete on TP1.
- 3.16% failure (some of them automation instead of actual failure)
We have a build this morning that is suitable for promotion to TP2
- Team should make best effort trying to get as much testing as possible.
- Paul does not anticipate significant issues
Paul mentioned that over weekend Test project did some testing around the areas that were fixed recently
Kathy would like to talk a bit about remaining blockers/criticals
- IBM side has call yesterday to triage what consumers needed.
- Side topic was the number of blocker/criticals
Blockers and Criticals
As of yesterday had 5 blockers & 5 criticals. Oliver asks about definition of blocker; we seem to have a lot of them for the last week of the release.
- 1 critical by fixed by Jonathan
- 4 critical and 4 blockers owned by Intel; Yunan replied on these
- 1 is a JVM defect
- We suspect another is also a duplicate of a JVM defect.
- Core dumps have been provided to JVM teams. One was particularly challenging becaues it involves a pre-release JVM
- Several of the other defects have patches associated with them already.
Paul raises the question of whether we really want these to go into 4.5.2 since the release is pretty much a done deal now.
- Paul concerned about possibility of fixing regressions
- Can these defects be deferred to 4.5.3 (Intel does not have a problem with deferral)
- Kathy noted that that one of them is about build infrastructure and is not really specific to 4.5.2
- For memory defect as community advocate, Eugene would like to see the 2 defects reviewed and fixed
Dispositioning the work
- 2 of 3 blockers are a JVM issue
- Those will be deferred
- Build related... paul okay with it
- memory no longer showing primitive Asaf has approved/reviewed patch
- If we are still having issue reproducing; at this point not prudent to try it.
- Raheel also looking at blocker...
- does not reproduce
Paul concerned about this happening during last week of release.
- These bugs have been P1 from the start
- These bugs have been opened for some time.
- Why did we not do this dispositioning earlier.
- Joanna thinks that the real problem is that we should have started this discussion about 3 weeks ago
- Joanna had not looked at how many P1s to defer
Leads should summarize their final 4.5.2 to 4.5.3 deferral lists and put it out on the list so community is aware
- Final check for negative feedback from community
- We will vote on them in one fell swoop in next weeks call.
- Joanna notes that a number of the defects have patches attached. Even if we defer them, they will likely be going into HEAD (4.5.3) at about the same time we offically defer them out of 4.5.2
Oliver asks if we can finish P1s before adding more P1s
- Paul notes that new things come in that are important during the release that have to be done
- Paul notes that we cannot really remove items from P1 list without community interaction (and we can't jerk the community around a lot)
We discussed the deadline a bit. Is the real drop deadline the 18th or 25th "release" date?
- EPP packaging is on the 23rd. But we are not part of EPP packages
- We have a bit of flex between 18th and 25th but should not push it too much.
- To avoid this last minute hassle, in the 4.5.3 schedule we need to annotate the points where we should start doing the "finalization" triage earlier
- Perhaps before test passes?
We had planned to discuss Java 1.4 support for 4.5.3 today. Paul like to defer to next week.
- TPTP F2F will start at 1PM
- Oliver will be unavilable from 4-6.
- Richard from BTM has withdrawn from his talk. (lost travel approval)
- his manager was already sending him to another conference and couldn't justify two.
- We are also planning to use F2F to encourage talking about JVMTI between IBM folks and Intel PRC folks (Yunan)
TPTP and C++ IDE possible collaboration opportunity discussion
- What experience do these folks have to contribute
- They do not have TPTP experience but do have general Eclipse experience/expertise
- We need to ask them if they have a more formal presentation on what they want to do.
- Action item for IBM and Intel to close on discussion about respective collaboration interest before EclipseCon