WTP Development Status Meeting
Note: feel free to correct any errors/omissions in above attendance record.
Announcements And Special Reports
(Weekly Google Calendar updated through June, 2010)
For Galileo and Helios overall dates, see a Simultaneous Release Calendar
- Ready to declare latest build?
See also the Galileo ramp down dates
- 08/28 M Build SR1 RC2 (PMC Review starts following this build)
- 09/04 M Build SR1 RC3 Can this be our final build?
- 09/11 R Build Final Build
- (09/25 Galileo SR1) (WTP 3.1.1) (fourth Friday of September)
- 01/08 M Build
- 01/15 M Build for SR2 RC1
- 01/29 M Build for SR2 RC2 (PMC Review starts following this build)
- 02/05 M Build for SR2 RC3 Can this be our final build?
- 02/12 R Build Final Build
- (02/26 Galileo SR2) (WTP 3.1.2) (fourth Friday of February)
- PMC Review begins after this week's RC2 candidate declared.
Galileo Maintenance Plan
See WTP_3.1.x_Maintenance for documentation of scope of maintenance and approvals required.
- Ready to declare latest build?
- Planning (initial plans due on or before second Helios Milestone)
- See http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/wtp-dev/msg07100.html
- For general directions, you can use the 3.1 Project Plans reference.
- M1 8/14
- M2 9/25
- Initial WTP 3.2 plans due 10/2 -- for Helios!
- M3 11/06
- M4 12/11
- M5 01/29
- M6 03/12
- M7 04/30
- RC1 05/14 (followed by weekly RCs, if needed)
- Final WTP 3.2 build 06/10
- (06/23 Helios Release)
Note: these (and our plan dates) are on 'Friday' of the week. But, we produce and test the build on Thursday of the week, and ideally declare on Thursday. The dates in the Google Web Tools group calendar are for 'Thursdays' since that's a calendar for committers. We give ourselves the buffer to Friday, as our "public" date, that others can pick up our build, just in case a regression is found on Thursday and we have to respin and retest. [Technically, some might say, we still have till the following Tuesday or Wednesday for "Simultaneous Release" due date ... but it's hard to do much in that window, without disrupting everyone ... so we'd not use that buffer, except for the worst emergencies.]
- We have once-a-day Galileo-based WTP 3.2 builds. Same WTP code. Different pre-req Platform. The goal is to make sure our 3.2 stream is at least compatible with both Galileo and Helios. Or, if we can not literally achieve being compatible, we should document why not and at least understand it.
- Any issues?
- Our bugzilla workflow and arch. council's recommendations (David Carver's note to wtp-dev)
- Note: carried over from last week ... TODO: adopt, or come back to arch. council on why not
Summary of sub-project round-table discussion:
Konstantin, not present.
Tim/Angel: on the fence
Nitin: will adopt (didn't like at first, but now does). Some issue on "meaning of" 'assigned' and 'new'
Chuck/Carl: will adopt. Likes it all, except the "strictness" of using "qa contact" to "temporarily" assign to someone to investigate. Will update documentation/arch council after gaining experience.
Conclusion: WTP as a whole will adopt and after month or so report on experience and/or open bugs on arch. countil to update their recommendations. Project leads to send note to firstname.lastname@example.org (for all their components, that have an 'inbox'.
See also the WTP Meeting Archive-Reference Page.