TPTP-PMC-20100106

Logistics

Attending: Paul, Oliver, Chris, Kathy, Eugene, Ernest

Any complaints about previous meeting summary

• no

4.5.2.1

Kathy reports that 4.5.2.1 M4 is done

• There is no strict M5 requirements so it is not scheduled

4.6.2

4.6.2 is winding down

• Yesterdays build candidate being used for smoke testing

Proposing to branch this week and use head for 4.7 while we rampdown on 4.6.2.

• Need PMC approval on that
• We are in lead approval for checkins already and will be in PMC approval mode
• After branch issues will need to be dual checked in.
• Paul has a new defect requested by a consumer for 4.6.2 and has a reguression that showed up in the test pass that he is scrambling to fix
  • Would like branch to defer to end of day instead of immediately
  • We will wait for Paul to send email then branch the code and make a build candidate for the test pass

The UI deadlock issue 295671 has been triaged and it is due to a long time ago feature deferral. It is too significant to resolve in this release and is a candidate for deferral. Since it will require more feature development it might not be able to be P1 even in 4.7.

4.7

We are reviewing component reorganization suggestions for 4.7. Kathy posted to the list a proposal

• Removing assorted components that have been as-is (pointing people who want them to older versions).
• Need Chris to review it and make any final components
  • Chris committed to do it this afternoon

Misc

With respect to metadata updating, Kathy had access to sub-projects to mark the milestone complete but was unable to do it for the top level project. This is an issue known to EMO.

With respect to the request on the list from the engineer who wanted write access to some "as-is" static source code

• Paul suggests that we just follow standard process to submit patches and we will then review what we can do
• Are we really in a position to reopen the component without additional resource committed to ongoing mainenance/test
• We dont' really build this component anymore so it is unclear what a patch would do and it is even more likely to be removed if we look at the component reorganization
• The question came up about whether the person needs builds or just needs the code checked in to faciliate consumption
  • Ernest trying to get more detail as the requester is an IBM engineer

Itanium

IPF builds are close to be totally transitioned to IBM.

• The flag to have Intel build is not currently being set.
• IBM would like to try the build a bit more before Intel turns off its cron jobs though

Eclipsecon

Oliver asks if anyone going to EclipseCon from Intel or IBM

• Early registration for Eclipse ends on Valentines day... Give an Eclipsecon pass to someone you love...
• No one from Intel is going
• There are some proposals from IBM but no travel authorization as yet
  • It is not looking certain at all if approval will happen
• Oliver doesn't want to be the only person from TPTP at EclipseCon
• Chris asks if you need to be registered for Eclipsecon to go to a BOF or not.
  • Oliver noted that there are several different registration modes including a "cheaper" exhibit pass.
  • Chris might consider flying down on the shuttle for a BOF if there is a need

2010 resourcing

The 2010 resourcing question came up.

• Chris agreed to set up a discussion with Oliver and Intel to close on final resourcing decisions before next week
• There is also a question will be how many resources IBM will have for future in open source TPTP

Oliver asks what happens to the overall project if resourcing drops low.

• Should TPTP remain a top level project
• Should consumers just take code internally
  • Are there pitfalls in the Eclipse license that would complicate doing this?
• Kathy asks if there are actual guidelines in Eclipse for retiring a project
  • There are rules about what must be done to continue but nothing is really ever really kicked out.
  • Eugene asked how to retire the monitoring project previously. Got back some details on a termination review process.