typically it is 10am EST. alek Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >Hi Alek, > >What time next Thu (for the post-2.0 chat)? > >Sanjiva. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Aleksander Slominski" >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:31 PM >Subject: [wsif] irc chat log about final release > > > > >>hi, >> >>this was short chat as first official 2.0 version is almost ready, >> >> >remaining tasks > > >>* RC4 release Friday (jan 24th) and unless major problems are discovered >> >> >it is renamed to 2.0 > > >>* no changes or new tasks until they are absolutely required as we want >> >> >RC4 to be final > > >>* everybody check current RC4 release (soon final 2.0) and report problems >>* write release summary and detailed list of how samples were tested >>* test more RC3 on linux and solaris (alek) >> >>next IRC chat is (tentatively) planned for Thursday Jan 30th to talk about >> >> >what is next to do after 2.0. > > >>thanks, >> >>alek >> >>chat log: >> >>[10:06] We're all here (Jeremy, Ant, Owen, Mark) >>[10:06] Shall we start? >>[10:07] i think so >>[10:07] let's wrap this up in 5 minutes, I want tpo eat my >> >> >sandwich > > >>[10:07] :-) >>[10:08] ok, so the RC3 is up and seems to be ok >>[10:08] the samples (except for JMS on JBoss) work >>[10:08] This morning all of us got together and went thru it, >> >> >made a list of minor changes > > >>[10:08] I checked in minor doc changes, Owen will shortly add >> >> >WebSphere-setup docs for the > > >>J2EE samples >>[10:09] i checked code on solaris >>[10:09] cool, solaris ok? >>[10:09] and there is small chnage i check in for classpath.sh >>[10:09] great >>[10:09] *** antElder (~ant@imhotep.hursley.ibm.com) has joined channel >> >> >#wsif > > >>[10:10] We plan to run tests on the RC3 and if everything passes >> >> >we can cut the release > > >>tomorrow, what do you think? >>[10:10] The major condition is that there should be no code >> >> >change between the RC3 and the > > >>final release, if there is we will cut an RC4 and delay the final >>[10:11] i would have one more day and RC4 tomorrow >>[10:11] and then if it is OK to promote it to 2.0 release (on >> >> >monday?) > > >>[10:11] that gives more time for testing >>[10:12] true, but we will run the test suite today and that's it >>[10:12] we need also write some release notes >>[10:12] we don't plan to test more than that, do you? if not I >> >> >don't see any reason to delay > > >>the release till Monday >>[10:13] yes, we need release notes >>[10:13] did you check it on linux too? >>[10:13] no >>[10:13] could you? >>[10:13] yes - but that will take a bit of time >>[10:13] ok >>[10:14] i wanted also to get JBoss sampel to work ... >>[10:14] that doesn't work prolly because of a JBoss thing (it >> >> >works on WAS) > > >>[10:15] If it is an ejb-jar.xml/jboss.xml change I don't mind >> >> >fixing it > > >>[10:15] what is the error? >>[10:15] but i wouldn't want to touch the MDB code or the client >> >> >code just to make JBoss happy > > >>(at least not right now) >>[10:16] don't know. some kind of connection failure. And the >> >> >behavior differs between runs > > >>(haven't investigated much) >>[10:16] i see >>[10:16] have you seen the error? >>[10:16] it is possible it is my env >>[10:16] but then we at least need to mention it in docs for this >> >> >release > > >>[10:17] true, but i'd like you to first confirm it is a problem >> >> >(if it my machine then thereis > > >>no issue) >>[10:17] ok >>[10:18] did you ever run the JMS thing successfully? >>[10:18] no >>[10:18] i thik i had wrong verion of Jboss downloaded ... >>[10:19] ok...I used 3.0.4 when it worked >>[10:19] i have got this verion now >>[10:19] and will try it >>[10:19] so if the JBoss run fails and there is no simple (i.e. >> >> >non code changing) fix we just > > >>document it >>[10:19] did you run JCA sample? >>[10:19] no >>[10:20] I'm thinking that is prolly tested only on WAS >>[10:20] we should put that in docs I guess >>[10:21] ok so you want to write a list of outstanding tasks >> >> >before release, conditions under > > >>which we do an RC4, etc. to summarise? >>[10:21] yes - to make clear what is tested and working >>[10:21] *** Hesham (~hfahmy@199.246.40.54) has joined channel #wsif >>[10:21] Hi all. sorry I'm late.. got snowed in this morning :( >>[10:22] i thik all is finished we jsut need to do more testing on >> >> >more platforms (i check > > >>linux) and write down in what setups (WAS, JBoss?) samples work >>[10:22] hi Hesh >>[10:23] Hesh I'm in Hursley, sitting here with JEremy and gang >>[10:23] Hesh did you try running the JCA sample under app server >> >> >other than WAS? > > >>[10:24] no. Only WAS 5.0 >>[10:24] ok, we can mention that in the docs >>[10:25] shoul dwe make a separate 2.0 release document or have it >> >> >as part of chnages.html? > > >>[10:25] we will need also to prepare -email announcement message >> >> >with list of what is in release > > >>[10:25] I think separate: release notes = changes.html + summary? >>[10:26] can put summary portion of release notes in email >> >> >annoncement > > >>[10:26] yes >>[10:27] so could we just summarize it and see if it is OK with >> >> >everybody or what is needed more? > > >>[10:28] 1. more test ing on linux and solaris (alek) >>[10:28] ok >>[10:28] 2. write release summary and detaield list of how samples >> >> >were tested > > >>[10:29] is there any reason to hurry to make release tomorow >> >> >instead of RC4 (that will be then > > >>promoted to 2.0 release soon)? >>[10:29] on (2) we just update existing sample docs >>[10:29] that leaves more time for testing >>[10:30] yes >>[10:32] do you plan to cut RC4 and then cut 2.0 again? >>[10:33] or is it just renaming rc4 to 2.0? >>[10:33] i was thinking: 2.0 == RC4 jsut renaming >>[10:33] just renaming >>[10:33] ok, we'll need to make sure tags for both exist >>[10:33] and are the same >>[10:34] yes >>[10:36] cut RC4 tomorrow and rename on Monday? >>[10:37] that what i awas thining >>[10:37] i.e. promote on Monday? >>[10:37] yes >>[10:37] is there something else that is maybe forgotten? >>[10:38] or anything else related to release we should tals about? >>[10:38] ok we'll cut RC4 here, sounds fine? tomorrow afternoon UK >> >> >time? > > >>[10:39] soudns fine >>[10:39] sounds good to me >>[10:39] should be enoiugh time to do any small chnages if needed >>[10:39] And there shoulod be absolutely no change at all to RC4, >> >> >only then we promote it to 2.0 > > >>[10:40] i hope so >>[10:40] (or we do RC5 ...) >>[10:41] sounds ok? >>[10:42] rc5 in the worst case (I hope not) >>[10:42] sounds good. Hopefully no RC5.. >>[10:42] that will be great to see 2.0 release real soon now :-) >>[10:43] ok then, are we done? >>[10:44] i will post irc log >>[10:44] to encourage more people to try out RC3 >>[10:44] i will also remove no longer relvant parts from >> >> >RELEASE_NOTES.txt > > >>[10:44] *** Signoff: wsif_bot (*.net *.split) >>[10:44] *** Signoff: nmukhi (*.net *.split) >>[10:45] ok. >>[10:45] ok >>[10:45] i think we had net plit >>[10:45] (nirmal lost his connection and can't get back on, but >> >> >says ok also) > > >>[10:45] (and Jeremy) >>[10:46] ok >>[10:46] then it is officially finished (short meeeting ae good >> >> >meetings :-)) > > >>[10:46] bye >>[10:46] bye >>[10:46] ok talk againg later, bye >>-- >>"Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. >>What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. >> >> >Bohr > > >> >> > > > -- "Mr. Pauli, we in the audience are all agreed that your theory is crazy. What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be true." Niels H. D. Bohr