Difference between revisions of "WTP 2008-04-10"
(→WTP 3.0 M7)
(→Post WTP 2.0.2)
|Line 89:||Line 89:|
=== Post WTP 2.0.2 ===
=== Post WTP 2.0.2 ===
* for , but ..
=== WTP 3.0 M7 ===
=== WTP 3.0 M7 ===
Revision as of 13:43, 10 April 2008
- 1 WTP Development Status Meeting 2008-04-03
- 2 Teams Status and Focus for Coming Week
- 3 References
- 4 Bug Backlogs
- 5 Focus on Backlog and Quality metrics (Neil)
WTP Development Status Meeting 2008-04-03
Announcements And Reports
Focus on Requirements Planning (Raghu)
- Review and Update the WTP 3.0 Plan by April 7
- Projects with no committed items: none
- Please update status page
- Please review untriaged enhancement requests
- Reminder: Any feature work that slips past M6 needs PMC review, and needs to be explicitly listed on ramp down page. (Before the end of M6!)
- David will update docs and send reminder note.
- Document updated to clarify policy. See WTP 3.0 Ramp down Plan for Ganymede
Post WTP 2.0.2
- Done for now, but .... some issues are still being investigated.
WTP 3.0 M7
- our +2 date: Tuesday, May 6 2008
- Final Code released by April 25th
- Plan 04/07 - 04/11
- Development 04/14 - 04/25
- Test 04/28 - 05/02
- RC1 05/20
- RC2 05/27
- User/SDK docs can be updated up to M7 (maybe RC1? -- I'll ask Helen to advise us)
- Bug Lists
- 3.0 Invalid Targeted Bugs (~13)
- 3.0 M7 Targeted Bugzilla Enhancements (~10)
- All Remaining 3.0 Targeted Enhancements (~98)
- 3.0 M7 Remaining Targeted Bugs (~148)
- 3.0 M7 Hot Bug Requests (~0)
- 3.0 M7 Hot Bugs (~1)
- 3.0 M7 Blockers/Criticals (~0)
- 3.0 M7 JST, WST, JSF Bugs Fixed (~30)
- 3.0 M7 JPT Dali Bugs Fixed (~20)
- 3.0 Untargeted Blockers/Criticals (~2)
- 3.0 Resolved, Unverified Blockers/Criticals (~30) By Assignee
Performance Focus (Kaloyan)
Some (possible) progress on debugging the problem with running the tests. Seems related to org.eclipse.test.performance
We'll begin having weekly performance section to review tests and test results.
Update 2008-03-06: We have identified that changes made in bug 201469 could be a potential reason for the Derby error:
ERROR 42Y07: Schema 'GUEST' does not exist
The changes in the bug are about improving performance, but they also affect the org.eclipse.test.internal.performance.db.DB class and if we compare between revisions 1.68 and 1.70 we could see that the changes deal with some user and password settings. Now it is not clear what should be changed in the WTP perf tests setup to comply with this change. May be setting some user and password for Derby?!
Update 2008-03-13: We have found an interesting article about Derby that seems to explain the problem. There it is explained that if the database is accessed without authentication, then the default database schema is APP. This is our case before the changes of bug 201469. But, if authentication is used, then the default schema becomes the username. After the changes of bug 201469 all access to the DB is done through the default user Guest. The DB driver tries to find the tables in schema GUEST instead of in schema APP. This explains the Error message above.
We see the best solution is to rename the schema in our Derby database from APP to GUEST for builds after bug 201469. We are now investigating how to do this.
- David: Generate db with platform test plugin, then things are okay, asked for the earlier build to be restored in the update site. Making progress on this, hopefully will have more report in 2 weeks
It seems that we have new problems with M5. It takes much longer (~33 hours compared to ~11 hours) and the wtpperflog is huge (120 MB) and full with dumps and errors. I need some time for further investigation of the problem.
API Tools/Scans (Kaloyan)
Current ones will be ending soon. Kaloyan volunteered to explore the new Platform API tools, to make recommendations to WTP or build process.
Update 2008-03-06: I have started exploring and evaluating the Api Tooling project. It is planned to become part of Eclipse 3.4 by the end of M6. Now it is available only by checking it out from CVS.
Project overview: http://wiki.eclipse.org/PDE_UI_Incubator_ApiTools
The Api Tooling supports profiles. I need to check if this can correspond to our adopter usage reports.
There are also Batch mode tools: Binary Compatibility Reporting and API Usage Reporting, but I am still in progress to find out how to run them.
Update 2008-03-13: No progress this week. I will try to catch API Tooling developers at EclipeCon next week. They also have a Long Talk on the event.
Update 2008-03-27: I had the chance to meet Olivier Thomann. He explained me a lot about the API Tooling and gave useful advices. It seems that we would not be able to use API Tooling in the way we use our adopter API scannages. The concept of API Tooling is different. Instead we can compare for binary and source breakages between WTP releases, e.g. between 2.0.1 and 2.0.2.
Adopting API tooling requires some efforts. It is almost sure that enabling a plugin with API tooling nature will introduce lots of warnings and errors. Rules and filters must be established within the code to prevent this warnings to appear.
- David: we need to change how we generate our javadoc in the build -- project by project, or component by component.
- Tim has volunteered to do something for the server project, and recommend to others
Teams Status and Focus for Coming Week
- Ongoing triaging of incoming bug reports
- Working on updating bug backlogs
- Triaging remaining 3.0 requirements and targeted bugs
- Ongoing triage of incoming and existing bugs/RFEs.
- Fixing bugs and implementing RFEs.
- Planning for M6.
- JPT 2.0
- Released new Editor for persistence.xml
- Completed Java to JPA project conversion support
- Working on:
- Project Explorer contribution
- XML defaults and validation
- EclipseLink support
- Feature exceptions
- Bug Fixes
- We will be changing the way we generate source features/plugins
- See bug 132094 for details, implications, and links to more info.
- Branching Strategy
- Please review and comment on the WTP How to: Branching Policy and Practices guide.
- In general, the minimum is if you branch a plug-in to branch all the plug-ins in the corresponding map file. It is fine to branch everything if you choose as well. We may need to reorganize map files slightly and we can investigate that on a case by case basis. This is intended to be a living document and open to evolutions and improvements.
- Instructions for tagging existing and new WTP wiki pages can be found at WTP's Category page; remember, we can create subcategories as well
- This Week's Smoke Test Results
- Build Declaration Process Refined - See WTP Build Process and Procedures
- Information about process for milestone bugzilla line item planning has been added to the WTP Bugs, Workflow, and Conventions document.
- PMC Candidate Review Request Checklist - See the updated PMC Review document with attention to the "How To Prepare a PMC Defect Candidate" section
- Adopter Migration Information for WTP 2.0 - Please add any details for your component.
- Documentation on Setting up your system for Web Tools Web site development and Using Web Tools Phoenix PHP templates is on the wiki at Web Tools Web Site Development.
- Bug Day
- All Untriaged WTP Bugs (Graph)
- All Untriaged WTP Bugs (~227)
- All WTP Verified, Not Closed Bugs (Graph)
- All WTP Verified, Not Closed Bugs (~159)
- All WTP Resolved, Unverified Bugs (Graph)
- All WTP Resolved, Unverified Bugs (~1532)
- All WTP Defect Backlog (Graph)
- All WTP Defect Backlog (~3168)
- All WTP Future Bugs (~166)
- All Open WTP Bugs with Patches Attached (Graph)
- All Open WTP Bugs with Patches Attached (~229)
- All API Requests (~9)
Focus on Backlog and Quality metrics (Neil)
Current Focus Item
- Untargeted bugs with patches attached opened before January 1st, 2008 (Last week - 24; Currently ~ 23)
- Options are
- Target bug for a release or "future"
- Mark as Invalid or Wont Fix
Upcoming Focus Item
Past Focus Items
- Untargeted Enhancements opened before January 1st, 2007 (Last week - 62; Currently ~ 58)
- Before July 1st, 2007 - 109
- Options are
- Invalid - Enhancement does not fit with the scope of the project or is already implemented.
- helpwanted keyword - This is a valid request, but due to committer resources and other priorities, outside help will be needed to make this happen.
- Future - I would use this in conjunction with the helpwanted keyword. I use this for legitimate requests that are important but will not make any planned release, but likely will make a future release.
- Untargeted severity "Major" and higher bugs opened before January 1st, 2007 (Last week - 2; Currently ~ 0)
- Before July 1st, 2007 - 21
- Neil: will focus on untargeted enhancements again after M7