Jump to: navigation, search

Eclipse/Kepler Retrospective

< Eclipse
Revision as of 12:36, 26 June 2013 by John arthorne.ca.ibm.com (Talk | contribs)

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

Patch review days were good. Increase in contributions, some community feedback on improved patch acceptable from platform

- Patch reviews depends on team, some have low patch volume and can review as they come in others have high patch volume and patch review days work well.

- Gerrit great for managing patches, rebasing keeping them up to date Not so great for merging straight from web UI - looks easy but means you can't test the code

CBI was a net loss for us so far. It was a very large volume of work just to get our build back to its old state. There is benefit for others in the community to make it easier for them to run builds independently. For committers it hasn't delivered any value yet.

Still lots of rough edges in our build that we need to address. Can't currently diff JARs reliably between builds.

Planning happened very late. We need to get the plan in place much earlier.

Far too many platforms to test, not enough time to test them. Maybe we can drop 32-bit for Mac, and server class machines. If there is demand for these

JDK matrix - maybe reference platforms only Java 7 for next release (and possibly Java 8)

Performance testing was non-existent. We need to get those back in place. Get them running, and then get useful ongoing data out of them. Performance pass during M6 - dedicated time built into plan to work on performance. Maybe do performance test pass in earlier milestone Do further automated analysis on performance data to get more useful signals out of data

Add topics to call in advance so we have time to think about it


Large focus on maintenance in 4.3 Shift more towards new development in Luna

less stress another major build transition

Value of these calls?

tagging POM files Equinox Luna changes

Mention install problems on Mac