TPTP-PMC-20080305

oliver, alex, alex, paul, chris, joanna Harm could not come

4.4.1 successful I5 successful

Lets talk about I6

Joanna would like to talk about I7 as well.

• First or last?
• Joanna wants to know if we could do something like we did for I5 (with reducing test passes) to have more time for development.
  • Oliver has always thought that test was a bit heavy. Oliver would be fine with this.
  • Paul suggests that we have 3 weeks of testing for each test pass. reduce each to 2 weeks for I6 and I7. Then leave 3 weeks for I8 since its all about test/release.
    • Do project leads think they can contain testing in I6/I7 with 2 weeks each
      • full test pass and smoke test pass.

Oliver asks why we think that we can get the same amount of testing done in less time now.

• At the very least automated tests are already done for 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
  • Oliver notes that if we can demonstrate that automated build time tests
• Joanna says that eugene and students are now on board and enabled to run tests
  • So platform tests can now be done in a single week.

Consumers at IBM are planning to pick up sometime in March and starting to test. May start getting defects filed.

Oliver thinks that for the future we should talk to consumers and use their plans in order to gauge test/development overheads for the different iterations.

So we should talk about dates for I6/I7

• April 4 is the foundation PII freeze date. That date is a constant.
• Move end of development for I6 one week later
• Make test pass 1 and test pass 2 each 1 week in duration
  • Currently 1.5 weeks for test pass 1, 0.5 weeks for fixing criticals, 1 week for test pass 2.

Everyone has defined what their test sets are for I6.

• Will this impact success of test pass?
• Nobody mentions a concern.

AI Paul to update detailed schedule on site.

Alex notes that AGR tests need to still be run.

• AGR are NOT in BVT today.
• Team actively working on getting it working
• Hope to get it done for I6 test pass
• Paul does not see a difference between manual execution of AGR and BVT execution of BVT (for XP platform)
  • Alex notes that sometimes AGR can fail because of platform specificic behavior (slightly different speeds, etc).
  • Paul sees this as a good thing for BVT because it will be a forcing function to the test developers to go and fix their tests to make them more reliable.
  • Oliver talks a bit about the cost/value of making your tests really good.

Oliver asking each project lead about I6

• Paul?
• test cases are set up
• somewhat on track -- have more defects in schedule than have resources
• Are gathering list to move out of I6
• Only 2 weeks of development time in I7
• will soon have list of defects to move totally out of 4.5
  • Not things with consuming product depenedences
  • Not things with lots of folks on CC lists for these defects.
  • Things that would have been nice to have.
  • Oliver notes that next week in schedule looks quite busy
    • Paul notes that with the extra week of development those items will spread out a bit more.

IBM consuming products filed ~130 defects and about 95 are fixed already.

• ~10 deferred to future

Oliver notes that if some bugs are being fixed for community that it could impact bugs fixed for consumers at IBM

• How does Joanna make that call?
• Weekly discussions/mail threads regarding defect backlog with consumers
• Will take into account severity (e.g., if there is some low priority consuming product defect to tweak something)
  • Oliver notes that this is actually a value for the consuming products because defects are found in advance of IBM consuming product customers running into them.
    • Joanna notes that most bugs are found in our test passes well in advance of consuming products even trying it out.
    • Oliver may want to stress this value with IBM consuming teams in the future.

Monitoring project

• team is making defect progress
• lots targeted for next week
• 2 have slipped from first week.
  • Requeire build changes (waiting in a queue to be processed)
• Reminaining slipped defects will be done this week.
• Team has 3 defects related to updating automated gui tests
  • Failed starting in I5 because of some refactoring
  • Needs fixing before I6 test pass
• Concentrating on P1 defects and on defects that IBM consumers are stressing
• Quite possible won't get everything done but right now it is looking fairly containable.
  • if don't make all of them lowest priority ones would fall off.
  • Hopes to have clarification on lists from IBM consuming products in next few days.

Oliver asks if Joanna is hooked into this?

• yes

Trace

• Oliver sees some bugs being fixed and is excited about it.
• 6 issues in bugzilla to close in this iteration
  • 2 critical
  • still no response from Joe toomey
  • Only indirect information from Richard stating that he is working alone and no deadlines scheduled
  • Hard to predict success
• these defects do block another defect.
• Would like to have direct communication w/ Joe but no response yet.

• Documentation issue. Need to update 2 tutorials about BTM.

Oliver asks whats up with Joe,

• Joe is about 10% on this effort
• Joe has been working on a product release
• Joe has not scoped it.
• Tivoli guys are giving Richard the AR to provide details to Joe who will then size it.
  • Original response from team was that they could not do it.
    • Joanna said that that was not appropriate response if they had not even sized it.

?Oliver asks how important is this? Should he grovel

• Alex notes that IBM should find btm updates for JVMTI are important
• Joanna believes it is quite important as well and will work this internally.
  • Problem is that it probably won't get done until I7 because of his product delivery
  • Some flexibility next week because Joe is finishing a product release this week.

Can we delay another week?

• Alex suggests that some discussion from Oliver may be good now because Joe has given no feedback yet.
• Only folks really effected is IBM.

oliver asks How bad would community be hit without this feature

• IBM would be most affected.

For now it is up to IBM to decide whether or not to fix. Joanna will follow up.

Platform -- IPv6 meeting yesterday

• jonathan did proposal about supporting it in stages
  • reviewed by all involved parties.
  • Has a list of defects involved
• May be some I6 defects that slide into I7
  • will need to revisit that after

IBM ottowa contributed static analysis

• They don't have time to work on it right now.
• Their code doesn't build with latest CDT version
  • It caused some build failures last week caused rollback of CDT version for us
• At very least need to get code updated to work with new CDT
  • IBM guys have internal codebase and external codebase and have been concentrating on internal codebase
    • Joanna has aksed harm to talk to them about fulfilling their commitment to the OS community.

Paul has a question about pushing out I6

• Does this mean that translation stuff can be pushed out as well.
• AlexN says that these cannot be pushed out more than a few days (need upload on 21st)
• Final Deadline for translations is the 21st (to be uploaded into database).
• AlexN is okay as long as people are okay for the official deadline.
  • Have them in to Alex by no later than the 19th to give him the opportunity to process and upload them.

Any more I6 items?

• Have a room the whole day
• Joanna cannot come.
• Can Joanna provide some dial in times
  • She will provide this.

Paul notes that he accidently sent the meeting out to a wider distribution list than intended.

POG update.

• will I7 one be better for our use cases than I6?
• Have been working on it and filing defects related to improving AC experience and UI experience
  • Even if do not get significant improvement in profiler experience are already getting some benefits.
• Still discussing AC configuration requirements.
• Will we be proud of what we hope to deploy into WTP?
  • Are we ready for this?
  • Yes. It has some problems but is definately more useful than before. We need more users to get their feedback about future directions.

Does Alex believe we should be in WTP?

• There will not be more HC appearing for support. So if support questions come in it will be traded off against other POG updates.
• Oliver tries to explain why investing more heads in community support actually helps you if you are going to be releasing a product.
• Support related to previous experiences. Tend to get lots of questions of people with pretty basic problems who are not reading documentation. Question about how to deal with this class of things
  • May need to update some documentation/tutorials.
  • updated web content for profiler.
  • This type of thing may reduce "dumb" questions.
    • Mikhail voronin mentions that some folk will still be lazy and not read documentation
      • suggests that the "optimal" settings should be set by default and not require manual configuration
      • Example: enabling binary mode by default.

Oliver asks if we are planning to tune the defaults to be the "best" before WTP release

• Is this sized within the team?
• It is not a high overhead for setting profiler defaults
  • some items require customization to get good data (e.g., filters)

Question to Joanna about whether this (WTP) will cause large support burden that we can't afford.

• Joanna notes that IPv6 and Java6 support are having issues getting the HC on target
• Any additional overhead is a bit frightening.

Question whether some test stuff should be stressed in the WTP bundle as well.

• Paul notes that EPP is not about creating new function. Should be

Chris notes that there may need to be some discussion around changing defaults

• Example we had discussion already about binary formats.
• Oliver would like to see us not getting too mired in legacy for optimial configuration
  • will need some more discussion.

Oliver mentioned previously on PC meeting

• Some ISVs saying bad stuff about lack of value from community
• Oliver noting that community as a testing vehicle has greatvalue.