Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Eclipse/Galileo/Retrospective

< Eclipse
Revision as of 10:26, 29 July 2009 by John arthorne.ca.ibm.com (Talk | contribs) (New page: * 3.5 better than 3.4 * builds are still slow * publisher in M7 * needed rebuilds * build input quality * missing performance results for some time * communication with Foundation *...)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
  • 3.5 better than 3.4
  • builds are still slow
  • publisher in M7
  • needed rebuilds
  • build input quality
  • missing performance results for some time
  • communication with Foundation
    • service levels for build machine?
    • need to talk to Foundation, e.g. planned maintenance windows
  • would like to be able to build anywhere
  • monitoring performance was useful
  • having a polish pass was good
  • plan came late
  • milestone week
    • should need fewer rebuilds
    • should need no late rebuilds
    • milestones on time less than 50% (we slipped to Saturdays, or in one case even to Tuesday next week)
  • Not enough time to test all platforms. Need:
    • more days
    • more people
    • less platforms
    • (make the above transparent for the community)
  • get people to sign up for testing on certain platforms
    • run JUnit tests
    • participate in milestone week testing
  • SWT needed to fix a lot of bugs during RC2
    • needs earlier test pass
  • per milestone messages
    • remind people about where we are
  • milestones worked
  • freeze things with downstream impact at M5
  • missing strictness around maintenance builds
    • need more oversight
  • meeting notes too long?
    • provide more detail than just "bug fixing"
    • should say where majority of time was spent
  • Bugzilla was really slow
  • API tooling
    • built a good test suite first
    • did doc on the fly
  • PDE target platform support came in late
  • performance result pages improved
  • need more performance test machines (4 instead of 3)

Back to the top