Jump to: navigation, search

DTP PMC Meeting, May 12, 2009

Revision as of 13:29, 12 May 2009 by Brianf.sybase.com (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Back to DTP PMC Meeting Page

Attendees

  • Brian Fitzpatrick
  • Linda Chan
  • Brian Payton

Regrets

  • John Graham

Agenda

  • Some debate in the planning council about builds (plus we have a BZ about it somewhere, but I can't find it this morning)
    • They want to include what they're calling the "runtime" components - basically whatever the user needs, not necessarily what developers need.
    • In our case, we have two distributions - SDK (Developer bits, Frameworks, Enablement, Source), non-SDK (Developer bits, Frameworks, Enablement, no source)
    • Do we need to add a new distribution that's just for the Frameworks and Enablement bits?
    • Is this even possible in the time we have left for Galileo? Probably not. But doesn't hurt to plan ahead.
  • DTP IPlog is going to their automated tool, which means we may have some work to do
  • Any more discussion with Amazon Web Services folks?
  • Open discussion

Minutes

  • Will put off the DTP distribution discussion a bit, but early on it looks like we'll want to do a Server (i.e. non-UI runtime) distribution, a User distribution (core UI + server), a Developer (core UI + Server + dev plug-ins), and a Dev + Source distribution. Perhaps more than that? Food for thought for next release
    • Bug 242092 is where I'll capture this discussion
  • Brian P asked when will we branch? I'm thinking we can branch sometime after RC3 is done, but we may want to leave a bit of extra room. Brian P is looking at some of the refactoring work he has to do to make some of his frameworks work better in RCP, which sounds like more of a major release bit of work than a maintenance release. So when do we look at branching for maintenance vs. next year's major release?
  • As far as IP log goes, Linda mentioned that the ODA XML plug-ins now use a different version of Xerces, which would necessitate an update to the CQ so we reuse the newer CQ for the Xerces version we're pulling from Orbit. She'll send me a note with the BZ# when she checks with the developers.

Action Items

Tabled for Later Discussion