| [higgins-dev] t Notes for January 10th Higgins developers call |
Alex Amies - IBM
Charles Andres - Parity
* Paula Austel - IBM
* Anthony Bussani - IBM
* Jeff Broberg CA
* Andy Hodgkinson - Novell
* Duane Buss - Novell
* Greg Byrd - NCSU/IBM
Brian Carrol - Serena
Tom Doman - Novell
Jeesmon Jacob - Parity
Valery Kokhan - Parity Ukraine
*David Kuehr-Mclaren - IBM
* Mike McIntosh - IBM
Tony Nadalin - IBM
Nataraj Nagaratnam - IBM
* Dale Olds - Novell
* Drummond Reed - Cordance
* Bruce Rich - IBM
* Mary Ruddy - Parity/SocialPhysics
* Markus Sabedello - Parity
Jim Sermersheim - Novell
Uppili Srinivasan - Oracle
Jim Miles
George Stanchev - Serena
* Daniel Sanders - Novell
* Paul Trevithick - Parity/SocialPhysics
Carl Binding - IBM
Igor Tsinman - Parity
Lex Sheehan
* Brian Walker - Parity
=====
* Present
Regrets:
Proposed Agenda
==============
1) Overall 1.0 Issue status. There were 4 open items this morning. We are entering some more items for clean-up tasks.
Click "1.0 Issues List" link at top of this page:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Components
Open items this morning were:
206695 - Update the component page for the native ISS 196390 - Support API extensibility
214048 - Provide Eclipse RCP-based I-Card selector
211945 - JNDI CP sets authZ identity incorrectly when authN type is AuthNSelfIssuedMaterials
2) Status of specific solutions. See http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Solutions
* Paul to add solution level components
* Platform support in wiki
3) IdaS conversation
4) Selector Selector
* OSIS conversation
* Create new component and update architecture diagram for Eclipse-based selector
5) IPR/Release review status (1 item is checkintocvs), one open items for the IP Log. Working on the committer and contributor contact list
6) Planned Higgins regular F2F January 29-31 in Provo http://wiki.eclipse.org/Jan_29-31_Provo_F2F_Agenda
======
1) Overall 1.0 Issue status. 9 issues at the moment.
[Paul]: The first one says Andy, but I need to give him some stuff. Most questions are about Jim's item. He is not available today.
[Paul]: What I wanted to do was step back, and review where we are to make sure that the bug list is complete. I took a stab of that. I created top level components for three of the solutions. I wanted to put known bugs and issues in so that we have them as we go into the review process. For example, the web-based selctor works, but has known performance issues. So that it is a representative list of open items...
[Paul]:The first one is Mike's. Is Mike on the call?
[Mary]: Unfortunately no.
[Paul]: Want to talk to Mike about splitting the selector selector into its own component. This will make it more visible.
Also different components have different platform dependencies.[Drummond]: Agreed .
[Paul]: Also need a concise way to talk about platform support. I will publish this proposal.
[Paul]: I have a list of other minor issues, some documentation, some autobuilds that aren't on on the list that we are working on. There is no one from IBM on this this call, unfortunately, as want to propose to take the idemix component off the 1.0 list.
[David]: I'm here and can take the proposal back .
[Paul]: The proposal is to move idemix to the nursery. That is, it is is not part of 1.0 .
[David]: Yes, I'll take that back.
[Paul]: I encourage you if you are working on anything, get it on the list so we can be as transparent as possible as we move into this review thing. As for Jim's quesiton about when we branch, as soon as anyone has a good reason to do so, just say the word and we will officially make the branch.
[Paul]: The next item is IdAS, but Mary without Jim, that is hard to discuss. We wanted to leave space to continue the conversiton. Daniel do you want to comment?
[Daniel]: There was a discussion on the list today. There are still have some issues. Don't fully agree with some of the proposed approach.
[Daniel]: I'm good with open classes. The debate centers about ...
[Paul]: I will review this thread.
[Daniel] What Sergey is saying is can get info from the schema...
[Paul]: My understand is the opposite on of Sergey's.
[Paul]: I will follow-up internally
[Paul]: Item 4. Haven't updated the architecture yet, but will.
[Paul]: Just had a number of us on an OSIS call for the previous hour. The issue is how does a selector adverstize itself? We are trying to stay away from brand and version number. There was a lot of rough concensus. The devil is in the detail. If lucky, will go fast enough to get into 1.0, but is an innocuus change to make afterword.
[Mike]: I'm here.
[Paul]: Mike, now that you are here. Do you agree to make it separate?
[Mike]: I think we need to talk about the interface between these things. Think that this is the long term solution.
[Paul]: I was thinking about moving the code and soon.
[Mike]: I think we need to worry about creating changes that generate legacy support before we think them all through.
5) IPR/Release review status (1 item is checkintocvs), one open item for the IP Log. Working on the committer and contributor contact list
[Mary]: We just have one open item in the IP log. Need to have code line counts for two contributions.
[Mike]: I will see if there is some tool to count the lines in the last two contributions.
[Mary, Mike]: Discussion of how code lines might be counted.
[Mary]: I'm also documenting the contact information for all the committers and contributors. I may have questions for some people
[Paul]: The last thing is a reminder of the upcomming Face-to-Face meeting in Provo. This will be a lot of fun as we can start thinking new things. There are many architectral things to talk about. As always if anyone has any suggestions, or any thoughts for topics, add them to the wiki. We should tell others: Oracle and Google.
[Paul]: What about the Oracle guy?
[Mary]: Yes, I reached out. He needed to check his schedule about the new date.
[Paul]: One last thing. When could we hold the release review?
[Mary]: They are generally held twice a month. It needs to be held at least one week after the IP review is complete. It is still possible that we might be able to hold it on the 30th, depending on how fast the IP review goes. (Note the completed IP log was sent to Eclipse legal on 1/11.)