DTP PMC Meeting, May 12, 2009

Attendees

Some debate in the planning council about builds (plus we have a BZ about it somewhere, but I can't find it this morning)
- They want to include what they're calling the "runtime" components - basically whatever the user needs, not necessarily what developers need.
- In our case, we have two distributions - SDK (Developer bits, Frameworks, Enablement, Source), non-SDK (Developer bits, Frameworks, Enablement, no source)
- Do we need to add a new distribution that's just for the Frameworks and Enablement bits?
- Is this even possible in the time we have left for Galileo? Probably not. But doesn't hurt to plan ahead.
DTP IPlog is going to their automated tool, which means we may have some work to do
Any more discussion with Amazon Web Services folks?
Open discussion

Will put off the DTP distribution discussion a bit, but early on it looks like we'll want to do a Server (i.e. non-UI runtime) distribution, a User distribution (core UI + server), a Developer (core UI + Server + dev plug-ins), and a Dev + Source distribution. Perhaps more than that? Food for thought for next release
- Bug 242092 is where I'll capture this discussion
Brian P asked when will we branch? I'm thinking we can branch sometime after RC3 is done, but we may want to leave a bit of extra room. Brian P is looking at some of the refactoring work he has to do to make some of his frameworks work better in RCP, which sounds like more of a major release bit of work than a maintenance release. So when do we look at branching for maintenance vs. next year's major release?
As far as IP log goes, Linda mentioned that the ODA XML plug-ins now use a different version of Xerces, which would necessitate an update to the CQ so we reuse the newer CQ for the Xerces version we're pulling from Orbit. She'll send me a note with the BZ# when she checks with the developers.