Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of WeeklyMinutes20100204


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 5, 2010, 12:28:52 PM (8 years ago)
Author:
shane
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • WeeklyMinutes20100204

    v1 v2  
    9494Michael: done, and the review is done, need to merge into trunk
    9595
     96= Release countdown: 6 weeks! =
     97
     98Shane: That's it. 6 weeks to go!!!
     99
     100= Release plan =
     101
     102Jeremy: Started making a checklist. Wanted to talk to Shane offline, wanted to talk about overlap in this. Using previous plans, dates don't match up at all, doing alpha/beta and all that. Need to create a shorter timeline. We have around 42 days, so our release date needs to be the 19th. So I'll talk with you offline, and we can do that today or early tomorrow morning.
     103
     104Jeremy: Going to be over 70 steps. Probably over 100 things to do, so we need a checklist.
     105
     106= Pre-IETF gathering? =
     107
     108Shane: Was idea to maybe get together a few days before the IETF at 950 to do the final work for the first release.
     109
     110''...discussion...''
     111
     112Shane: sounds like no support for this, but we can arrange for hours and hours of conference calls like Jelte did for the BIND 10 meeting the day before.
     113
     114= Status Check =
     115
     116In future, these will be done via an e-mail before the call. This week send ASAP (not ideal, since after the call, but...)
     117
     118Likun: AXFR-in requirements now on wiki. Try to write message API in Boost Python.
     119
     120Jinmei: What is current status? Already working?
     121
     122Feng: Will start from simple class like Name, and should commit code maybe next week.
     123
     124Jinmei: That's great!
     125
     126----
     127
     128Jeremy: for the user installation, I need to go through the steps of generating the alpha release tarball so we can go through any "gotchas" and make sure our steps are refined. I haven't even gone through all of that, but I will be. Hopefully have alpha tarball that we can provide to end users by Monday. As of yesterday I was able to run the entire BIND 10 with the authoritative daemon without source.
     129
     130Michael: My only concern is calling it "alpha". "Alpha" implies that this is no the path to something that can be run in production.
     131
     132Jeremy: We'll call it a "snapshot".
     133
     134Michael: Snapshot is off of which branch?
     135
     136Jeremy: Parking lot. We will have a trunk, but nothing is there really.
     137
     138Michael: Need to start merging stuff off of trunk, or decide we have to release from parking lot.
     139
     140Shane: we need to move stuff onto trunk anyway.
     141
     142Michael: Other projects have insured that things get where they need to go by e-mail to groups for pull-ups into branches. In NetBSD, if you make a change, you commit it to the mainline or branch and then request a pull-up to the branch you want to.
     143
     144Shane: Don't see much advantage.
     145
     146Jinmei: Not sure I understand this suggestion. Is this who finally commits it to the trunk?
     147
     148Michael: Or to the release branch.
     149
     150Jinmei: Don't see much advantage either.
     151
     152Larissa: Making sure everything there is possibly a release engineering function?
     153
     154Michael: The advantage of the NetBSD way is that a release engineer can say "this is de-stabilizing".
     155
     156Jelte: we are backwards - normally trunk is backwards
     157
     158Jinmei: might make sense to move current set of DNS message API and review that to move to trunk as soon as possible
     159
     160Shane: don't want unreviewed code, but we can have separate tickets
     161
     162Jeremy: Someone mentioned sweng discussion, and other people were not there. So we're missing a lot of context.
     163
     164Michael: This was just a status sent to the sweng list, what we will be doing to the BIND 10 list.
     165
     166Shane: Goal of killing parking lot as soon as possible?
     167
     168[ Agreed ]
     169
     170Jeremy: Need review of configure scripts and Makefiles. In my case I see errors and warnings, but I haven't had a chance to follow up on this.
     171
     172Michael: For one-time bootstrap. If we can do this today and tomorrow and get rid of parking lot branch in 2 days? I think we have to do this as one large merge.
     173
     174Jinmei: Just move the parking lot to the trunk, even without reviewing it. Make a list of which parts should be reviewed. First-time bootstrap workaround. After that we go to the more sophisticated review possible.
     175
     176Jeremy: Seems like we need to make a branch and call it "reviewed".
     177
     178Shane: As long as this is systematic, so we can be safe? Jeremy will be owner.
     179
     180Jeremy: What about existing code in trunk?
     181
     182Jinmei: Forget it, I'll deal with it later. It's almost unchanged in parking lot.
     183
     184----
     185
     186Jeremy: Comment about review process. Should we have a checklist where the reviewer copies & pastes it into the reply? That way we can show the same checklist... maybe too simple & too redundant. I noticed there was a minor issues in one of the msgq tests, and I just noticed that today. Maybe the reviewer didn't run the tests since it was renamed... so a checklist could verify those things would have been caught.
     187
     188Jinmei: I thought we had an idea of a checklist?
     189
     190Jelte: We do have a checklist, but I think what Jeremy means is we go by each line and put "okay" on each line as we go through it.
     191
     192Michael: As long as we don't have to go through old reviews...
     193
     194Michael: Can we have this added as a template in the ticket?
     195
     196Jeremy: Maybe... I don't know, but maybe...
     197
     198'''AP''' Jeremy to update review process to say to cut & paste checklist into review
     199
     200----
     201
     202Jeremy: all code developed is owned by ISC, so everyone needs to know that
     203
     204Jeremy: we need to include copyright in code
     205
     206Michael: can we steal the code which looks for copyright in files?
     207
     208Jeremy: for now just do the warnings
     209
     210'''AP''' Jeremy to make sure files are automatically checked for copyright
     211
     212= AOB =
     213
     214Michael: Would like to see a message from Shane every week (starting Monday) with what our goals for that week are.
     215
     216Jeremy: I will help with that too.