Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "DTP Connectivity Project Committers Meeting Minutes: August 11, 2008"

(Minutes)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
==Agenda==
 
==Agenda==
 +
*DTP 1.6.1 M1 - 3.4/3.3 compatibility vs. 3.4/3.3/3.2 compatibility?
 
*Open discussion
 
*Open discussion
  
 
==Minutes==
 
==Minutes==
 +
* Discussed 1.6.1 M1 build and the IMarker breakage that caused the 1.6.1 M2 build to break this morning. Larry has pulled that fix out of the M2 build, but wants us to keep it in the M1 build for now, as the product they are using M1 for is 3.4-based. We (PMC) need to discuss what to do in this case. I believe we need a new build that is 3.3-based, since that's what we're supporting in Ganymede (lowest common denominator). But how we support this with IBM's request is a bit of a quandary.
 +
* One questionable thing is that two builds - M1 and M2 were done over the weekend, but only M2 broke with this 3.4 API usage. Have sent an e-mail to Xiaoying to figure out why the M1 build didn't break.
 +
* Larry also mentioned that he's found a possible bug in DTP related to the change we made to driver definition IDs, but he can't reproduce it in DTP, just with the IBM code. He's still investigating.
  
 
==Action Items==
 
==Action Items==
  
 
[[Category:Data Tools Platform]]
 
[[Category:Data Tools Platform]]

Latest revision as of 17:29, 11 August 2008

Back to DTP Connectivity Project Committers' Meeting Page

Attendees

  • Brian Fitzpatrick
  • Larry Dunnell
  • Linda Chan

Regrets

Agenda

  • DTP 1.6.1 M1 - 3.4/3.3 compatibility vs. 3.4/3.3/3.2 compatibility?
  • Open discussion

Minutes

  • Discussed 1.6.1 M1 build and the IMarker breakage that caused the 1.6.1 M2 build to break this morning. Larry has pulled that fix out of the M2 build, but wants us to keep it in the M1 build for now, as the product they are using M1 for is 3.4-based. We (PMC) need to discuss what to do in this case. I believe we need a new build that is 3.3-based, since that's what we're supporting in Ganymede (lowest common denominator). But how we support this with IBM's request is a bit of a quandary.
  • One questionable thing is that two builds - M1 and M2 were done over the weekend, but only M2 broke with this 3.4 API usage. Have sent an e-mail to Xiaoying to figure out why the M1 build didn't break.
  • Larry also mentioned that he's found a possible bug in DTP related to the change we made to driver definition IDs, but he can't reproduce it in DTP, just with the IBM code. He's still investigating.

Action Items