TPTP-PMC-20071128

Logistics

Attending: Oliver, Alex Nan, Chris, Alan Haggarty, Mikhail Voronin

• Regrets: Joanna, Harm

Any objections to previous minutes?

• no

List of Action Items

Thanks to Paul for documenting many of the action items. I'm putting this at the top so everyone sees it first.  :-)

• AI: Project leads to send TPTP-InactiveCommitter-FormLetter to each inactive committer for their project see here for committer lists.
• AI: Project leads to review the Component reorganization WIKI
• AI: Since the 4.5 Plan has been approved, project leads to update the priority (P1) and keyword (plan - if resources are available) for the enhancements.
• AI: Project leads to Revise the description for your project's planned enhancements in the 4.5 Plan. Note, related enhancements may be integrated into one row.
• AI: Everyone to review the EclipseCon 2008 submissions and reply to my comments by replying to this message or directly to the submissions at EclipseCon site (->Category Test and Performance->Search).
• AI: For Guru, need testing overhead estimates for the 4 manual tests that are in Trace.
• AI: Leads to go read/comment on test automation documents
• AI: Leads. Weekly milestones should reflect at the very least the targeted completion weeks for every targeted enhancement and defect.
• AI: Each lead needs to be especially aware of schedule given breaks and plan out how to accomplish test passes/etc.
  • (note) Paul tried to make sure test pass 1 would happen before bulk of holidays hit.

4.5 Plan Closure

We wanted to close on 4.5 plan today

• Would like to reflect in minutes that 4.5 plan is complete
• See Plan Web Site.
  • Thanks to Paul for filling in much of the content
    • All enhancements approved by AG are reflected
    • Only one not in plan is late arrival from Alex (yesterday)
      • Item was originally a defect; objected and considered an enhancement
      • Some discussion needed to finalize AG approval
      • A bit more description document is needed for AG review.

• Opportunity was given for leads to voice objections and indicate that items in plan had resource issues. No significant issues came out.
  • We noted that some items may need to move between the Platform/Trace/Monitoring buckets to properly reflect component ownership (see Structure Web Site but the items themselves are correct.
• Proceeded to voting on approval of plan
  • Unanamous approval for the plan was given.

Test Automation and Test Estimation

Paul adjusted some test dates to line up with Ganymede releases

Special kudos for good estimating/documentation Test and Monitoring

Monitoring update

• Alex updated some test reports after I3 based on which ones should be in test pass
  • I3 test list was slightly off
  • It is now fixed and will not recur for I4

Oliver reminded all leads that they should now know and have documented/configured the tests intended to be run for I4.

Test Automation Status: Had weekly meet on Monday. A bit behind behind on testing process -- sick days -- behind on project

• do have draft documents on wiki (w/ comments page)
  • (test infrastructure set up; blocked on BIRT related bugs)
    • Milestone was to deliver POC today; revised target is next week
    • BIRT bug targeted to M4 (no reports till then)
  • Test bug being fixed today

4.5 Milestones Tracking

Question came up regarding Are all defects and enhancements in the weekly schedule?

• For monitoring Not all are there; most of them are there
• In general, all defects should show up in weekly schedule. Just tgted completion date is sufficient (more if desired).

Platform

Since Joanna was absent, Oliver expressed expectation that all items in the weekly table are on track with no issues.

Trace

Some discussion about why the milestones are pretty sparse today

• There are very few actual components officially in Trace | today.
  • Profiling falls under Platform
  • Most BTM tests are under Monitoring components
  • Only 4 tests fall officially under Trace
• For last few releases, Trace has done bulk of planning/tracking of (particularly JVMTI) related profiling items and has provided rollup details that were then inserted into the Platform plan/track.
  • This time around with the weekly milestones and moving toward more documentation of the steps along the way issues with this are showing up.

Need some larger scale discussion about managing trace/monitor/platform and deciding which components fall into what project. In the meantime...

• Guru working to set up meet w/ Guru, Joanna, AlexA, MikhailV to close on how to document/track profiling items for 4.5
  • Assorted spreadsheets/mail threads have gone back and forth between Guru, Mikhail, Alex, and Joanna over last few months. So the planning has proceeded. There is a documentation gap however.
  • Hope for meeting first half of next week.
  • Expectation is for the weekly milestones to reflect all the targeted work for profiling next week.
• Alex will continue to manage BTM/Trace related items as he has been doing while we wait on resolving management questions...

Question came up how to deal with P3 (uncommitted) work in weekly weekly milestones

• Trace defects waiting on IBM resource to come onboard
  • Guru had moved the ~10 defects to "future" because timeline for resource was unknown.
  • Now that will have resource (Eugene) starting in Jan, need to pull items back to P3/4.5... However, won't know placement in time of defects until Eugene triages more.
• Oliver suggests
  • Note when resource comes onboard in weekly milestone
  • Should have "evaluate timelines for bugs x, y, z, and update"

Test

if can get to 50% test automation there are real gains to be achieved.

• 208110,162605 reviews continue
• data pool security work continuing

reporting of some new priority defects that were causing grief have been resolved (caused delay in a few weekly milestones); some new bug work started

• Will get to test passes on time...

Monitoring

A bit behind on features

• Split into multiple defects to facilitate tracking
  • Large items split into work items...
  • Probably can't contain everything originally targeted to I4;
    • Some defects will move to later. Getting as much function stuff done as possible for I4.
    • Anything needed from PMC to do that? No.
    • Will have enough functional for I4 test cycle

4.4.1 Status

4.4.1 planned a test pass around now

• Planned it when IBM JRE with needed fixes for more full BCI was available.
• IBM JRE with needed fixes not out yet. Discussions underway to find out if it will be soon or if we should proceed without it.

MISC

Lots of inactive committers; We tried a pass where folks asked if people want to be removed. Need to be a bit more aggressive. See AI above for form letter we will use.

• Harm recommends to send mail that says that will be removed if they do not reply.
  • For now, we will collect names and then do a bulk request/update for removal later
  • Paul has already gotten 2 names who have explicitly stated that they want to be removed (and has started the process for them)
    • Emmanuel Wurth
    • Todd Merriweather
  • Chris has been collecting names/emails from some inactive committers at Intel. He will post these in a bulk mail to the PMC.
  • After we get all the names back, we will put whole list in minutes and bulk remove.

eclipsecon review -- courtesy to paul -- please review items

• Please look at submissions; if disagree with any comments please comment
  • Inside interface or messages to Paul
  • AI for team...

component reorganization -- needs to be done in I4... Effects several leads.

• new category of stuff called "asis"

Chris will be presenting TPTP profiler at an Eclipse DemoCamp on Dec 10. Will try to point some folks at the wiki for lead users at that time.

Profiler use case discussion.

Harm wants to be a lead user for J2EE; submits use case; profiler team

• AI to Harm to get ues case documented fully on wiki
• Presumably bunch of bugzillas will end up being opened; need definitive strings.
  • Oliver suggests using "[POG]" in title of these defects.
    • Some may be fixed in software; some in documentation
  • Would like to see more lead users using same use cases that are chosen.
  • Usability discussions -- satisfying lead users -- Oliver would like to be involved
    • could be call could be wiki page discussion; sounds reasonable to Mikhail
    • Probably not a weekly thing; biweekly? Monthly? asneeded?
  • Need logging of "easy fixes/workarounds" in case other folks run into same issues (should tie into documentation plan)