Difference between revisions of "DSDP/MTJ/Phone Meeting 16-Nov-2006"

From Eclipsepedia

< DSDP‎ | MTJ
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
* Craig Setera, eclipseME
 
* Craig Setera, eclipseME
 
* Petri Virtanen, Nokia  
 
* Petri Virtanen, Nokia  
* Rauno Seppälä, Nokia  
+
* Rauno Seppälä, Nokia
  
 
== Notes ==
 
== Notes ==
'''Status'''
+
'''Status 0.7'''
0.7 release waits review (on next week)
+
  
 +
0.7 release waits Release Review (on next week Wednesday)
  
 +
-> Officially acctepted version, if no drawbacks.
  
 +
-> Change RC2 ->0.7
  
 +
-> CVS labeling for Release 0.7
  
 +
-> Wrong date on web page -> Petri to update (Nov. the 15th)
  
* Current status
 
* 0.7 release status and bugs
 
* Release plan
 
* Open issues
 
  
* Release 1.0 Use-Cases
+
'''1.0 '''
* UC's current status
+
* UC acceptance process
+
* Identified components and work estimates
+
* Open issues
+
* Fragmentation database
+
* Pre-processing options
+
  
* Resourcing and contribution
+
Feature list
* Who has interest to participate to UC definition
+
:No comments to current proposal
* Who has interest to take development work
+
:AP Rauno: Send out an email that states the list and this is the final point to comment it. The mail states the projcet to be schedule driven and all the features may not be possible to implement.
* Which features/use cases?
+
:AP Rauno: Provide priorities to features, open discussion about them.
  
* AOB
+
Use-Cases
  
 +
:Current status
 +
::Fragmentation, UI Designer and Flow Designer intial UCs are in wiki.
 +
::More to come from Nokia
 +
::AP Rauno: Provide two weeks commenting time for UI and Flow Designer cases, then officially approve them.
 +
:UC status page opened to wiki.
 +
::AP Rauno: to send a mail to the community to fill in willingness to contribute UC and development work. Relates to priorities.
 +
 +
:Open Issues
 +
::Fragmentation Database (we didn't discuss about this)
 +
:: Pre-processing options
 +
:::Two proposals (Four2B vs. Enough Software). What is the preferred way to go on? And leave door open to other solutions as well. Risk to stuck 'API discussion' for long time. Needs to be a solution that leads fast to the initial solution. Arto to provide material.
  
 
   
 
   
 
'''Other'''
 
'''Other'''
 +
 +
*We discussed possibility to have more frequent meetings (weekly) and agreed that they
 +
are needed. However, next weeks might be tight to get all active memebers on-line due to various reasons.<br/>
 +
Also, Technical meetings may be arranged outside of 'official' biweekly meeting cycle.
 +
 +
*A discussion on need to ensure that framework provides good platform for fragmentation and other services (for new developers).
 +
 +
*Eclipse Con accepted IBMs speech proposal.
 +
 +
 +
*Let's invent a code name for the project.
  
  

Latest revision as of 11:16, 16 November 2006

[edit] Attendees

  • Kevin Horowitz, IBM
  • Stanley Gambarin, Apogee
  • Craig Setera, eclipseME
  • Petri Virtanen, Nokia
  • Rauno Seppälä, Nokia

[edit] Notes

Status 0.7

0.7 release waits Release Review (on next week Wednesday)

-> Officially acctepted version, if no drawbacks.

-> Change RC2 ->0.7

-> CVS labeling for Release 0.7

-> Wrong date on web page -> Petri to update (Nov. the 15th)


1.0

Feature list

No comments to current proposal
AP Rauno: Send out an email that states the list and this is the final point to comment it. The mail states the projcet to be schedule driven and all the features may not be possible to implement.
AP Rauno: Provide priorities to features, open discussion about them.

Use-Cases

Current status
Fragmentation, UI Designer and Flow Designer intial UCs are in wiki.
More to come from Nokia
AP Rauno: Provide two weeks commenting time for UI and Flow Designer cases, then officially approve them.
UC status page opened to wiki.
AP Rauno: to send a mail to the community to fill in willingness to contribute UC and development work. Relates to priorities.
Open Issues
Fragmentation Database (we didn't discuss about this)
Pre-processing options
Two proposals (Four2B vs. Enough Software). What is the preferred way to go on? And leave door open to other solutions as well. Risk to stuck 'API discussion' for long time. Needs to be a solution that leads fast to the initial solution. Arto to provide material.


Other

  • We discussed possibility to have more frequent meetings (weekly) and agreed that they

are needed. However, next weeks might be tight to get all active memebers on-line due to various reasons.
Also, Technical meetings may be arranged outside of 'official' biweekly meeting cycle.

  • A discussion on need to ensure that framework provides good platform for fragmentation and other services (for new developers).
  • Eclipse Con accepted IBMs speech proposal.


  • Let's invent a code name for the project.



- Next meeting 30th Nov