balunasj
:
ok guys let get started - here is the agenda  - http://community.jboss.org/wiki/RichFacesTeamMeetingAgenda1-12-2010
[
11:06am
]
balunasj
:
First just a general announcement that because of recent changes in JBoss.org software
[
11:06am
]
balunasj
:
RichFaces now has its own "space" and subspaces in the JBoss community.
[
11:07am
]
balunasj
:
This means we can migrate out wiki content and make it easier for people to find RichFaces information.  It also
[
11:07am
]
balunasj
:
means that the forums, articles, and wiki will all be "connected".
[
11:07am
]
balunasj
:
Nothing major there, but some good news for organization
[
11:08am
]
balunasj
:
Let jump to the 3.3.3 release discussion
[
11:08am
]
balunasj
:
today we need to determine if the next release of RichFaces 3.3.3 will be BETA2 or CR1.
[
11:09am
]
balunasj
:
I would like to get some opinions, and thoughts from QE, and dev.  Then we can discuss the jira's that have been open.
[
11:09am
]
balunasj
:
and/or resolved in this release.
[
11:11am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat alexsmirnov nbelaevski ilya_shaikovsky : any thoughts on this, or updates from last week?
[
11:11am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: RF-8204 is resolved
[
11:11am
]
prabhat
:
ppitonak: ^ for you to verify
[
11:11am
]
prabhat
:
ppitonak: it's related to State Manager
[
11:11am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: I've added couple of issues from unscheduled for investigation & for fixing in 3.3.3.CR1
[
11:12am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj:  I think CR1 should be good
[
11:12am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: also I propose to upgrade to JSF 2.0.2 for CR1. now 2.0.1 is used
[
11:12am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: yes I saw those - thanks - I am going to take a look at them.
[
11:12am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: do you know what was changed or updates?
[
11:13am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: I am leaning that way as well.
[
11:13am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: noticed anything in the forums or jira to make you think we need another BETA?
[
11:13am
]
lfryc
:
nbelaevski: what about collisions with AS 6.0.0.M1? it is using JSF 2.0.1
[
11:14am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
balunasj, no spent much time on that during last days and seems things are fine
[
11:14am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: thanks
[
11:14am
]
ppitonak
:
prabhat: I launched a new build in Hudson
[
11:14am
]
alexsmirnov
:
I've fixed one more issue in RF-8213
[
11:14am
]
nbelaevski
:
lfryc: tomcat can run 2.0.2, but JBoss 2.0.1
[
11:14am
]
nbelaevski
:
lfryc: or JBoss 5.1 + JSF 2..0.2
[
11:14am
]
balunasj
:
lfryc: good point, but should be ok because it was just a bug fix release
[
11:15am
]
lfryc
:
nbelaevski: ok
[
11:15am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: nbelaevski we should stick with least common denominator..please do not add another complexity of jsf minor version unless I am misreading your comment
[
11:16am
]
balunasj
:
FYI - release notes - https://javaserverfaces.dev.java.net/nonav/rlnotes/2.0.2/index.html
[
11:17am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: how much of an impact does a minor version change like this effect you?
[
11:18am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: what I am saying is it should be one version..not something like 2.0.2 for JBoss AS and 2.0.1 for tomcat
[
11:18am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: if everything goes to 2.0.2 then it's not a problem
[
11:19am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: makes sense?
[
11:19am
]
balunasj
:
if we are testing to the latest AS release it would be 2.0.1, if it is to the snapshot - I'm sure they are updating soon, but I understand your concern.
[
11:19am
]
alexsmirnov
:
balunasj: It's unpredictable. I've seen a lot of changes in SVN.
[
11:20am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: do you see anything critical in https://javaserverfaces.dev.java.net/nonav/rlnotes/2.0.2/issuesresolved.html
[
11:20am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: that we need for the testing.
[
11:20am
]
balunasj
:
remember that we don't actually ship JSF so this is just to identify test targets.
[
11:21am
]
balunasj
:
i.e. we can't enforce what version users are going use
[
11:21am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: it seems the list is not complete. at least I don't see the change that caused RF-8204 to work differently with 2.0.1 & 2.0.2
[
11:21am
]
balunasj
:
except that some bugs may effect certain JSF versions
[
11:21am
]
nbelaevski
:
my point for 2.0.2 is that it's the latest stable version
[
11:22am
]
prabhat
:
nbelaevski: yes and if that works with tomcat and jboss as then we should use 2.0.2
[
11:22am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: agree, so you are saying without 2.0.2 RF-8204 will not be "fixed"?
[
11:22am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: no, fixed for both 2.0.1 & 2.0.2
[
11:22am
]
alexsmirnov
:
prabhat: I guess that Jboss AS will use 2.0.2 soon, so it should be tested.
[
11:23am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: ok
[
11:23am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: I can't identify the change that made it behave differently in the relnotes for 2.0.2
[
11:23am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: ok
[
11:24am
]
balunasj
:
We want to identify a min version to be supported for the release ( supported == tested ).
[
11:24am
]
balunasj
:
alexsmirnov: I agree that AS next release will use 2.0.2
[
11:25am
]
balunasj
:
alexsmirnov: but the current one uses 2.0.1 - so I see prabhats point about lowest denominator
[
11:26am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: what stops from using 2.0.2?
[
11:26am
]
balunasj
:
the current release of AS uses 2.0.1
[
11:26am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: yes but from 3.3.3 perspective, AS6 is nice to have..not got to have
[
11:27am
]
balunasj
:
I think this is not as big a deal which one we go with as long as there are not critical known problems if we do not update.
[
11:27am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: if AS5 + 2.0.2 works and next AS6 will have 2.0.2, we should use 2.0.2
[
11:28am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: if it is ok with QE it is ok with me - you brought up concerns about this so.....
[
11:28am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: yes yes
[
11:28am
]
balunasj
:
ok
[
11:28am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: it's for jsf2..it makes more sense to have latest jsf2
[
11:29am
]
balunasj
:
so from the sounds of it we all agree the next release will be CR1
[
11:29am
]
balunasj
:
any objections?
[
11:29am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: for people trying 3.3.3 for jsf2 are likely going to be cutting edge so they will use 2.0.2 anyway
[
11:30am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: agree completely - again I was backing up your concerns - if you are fine with it great.  I want us to always be using the latest version if possible
[
11:30am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: ok 2.0.2 it is..I am fine with it
[
11:31am
]
balunasj
:
ok so no objections on CR1 - next question is timing for the release.
[
11:31am
]
balunasj
:
I would like to target end of the month for tagging and delivery to QE.  If sooner great, but that should be our limit for time.
[
11:32am
]
balunasj
:
there is currently only 7 open issues and amarkhel was going to investigate for complexity.
[
11:32am
]
balunasj
:
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310341&versionId=12313806&showOpenIssuesOnly=true
[
11:33am
]
balunasj
:
He already resolved several, and I know nbelaevski and alexsmirnov have also covered some.
[
11:33am
]
balunasj
:
amarkhel: have you had a chance to review the remaining issues?
[
11:34am
]
amarkhel
:
balunasj: one minute please I haven't seen yet RF-8252
[
11:35am
]
balunasj
:
amarkhel: this is one that nbelaevski moved over for investigation
[
11:35am
]
amarkhel
:
balunasj:RF-8148 is minor and as minimum one day needed to fix...
[
11:37am
]
amarkhel
:
balunasj: as for RF-8196 I think 4-5 hours will be needed to fix
[
11:37am
]
balunasj
:
amarkhel: ok
[
11:37am
]
amarkhel
:
RF-8252 - need to time to investigate, so I can't estimate now
[
11:38am
]
balunasj
:
sure
[
11:39am
]
nbelaevski
:
pyaschenko: do you have estimates for https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/RF-8249 ?
[
11:39am
]
balunasj
:
I'm concerned that some of the "minor" issues are not really minor.  If they truely are minor we should not be fixing them in a CR1 release.
[
11:40am
]
pyaschenko
:
nbelaevski: I think 3 hours
[
11:40am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: what about you issue there?
[
11:40am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: I think RF-8249 is major, so I'll increase priority
[
11:41am
]
balunasj
:
agree
[
11:41am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
balunasj, will be done tommorow
[
11:41am
]
balunasj
:
in general my biggest complaint with Jira is that it needs severity and priority
[
11:41am
]
balunasj
:
just because something is a big problem does not mean it is a priority
[
11:41am
]
balunasj
:
I think that is where the confusion comes from.
[
11:42am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: ok
[
11:42am
]
nbelaevski
:
ilya_shaikovsky: can you look at https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/RF-8195 ?
[
11:43am
]
nbelaevski
:
seems a demo issue too
[
11:43am
]
balunasj
:
so overall for RF there is not too much time required - however we have a lot of other things going on at the same time, and should give some more time to community feedback.
[
11:43am
]
balunasj
:
we also need to discuss RFPL
[
11:44am
]
balunasj
:
there are some issues there that are required for release.
[
11:44am
]
balunasj
:
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310840&versionId=12314026&showOpenIssuesOnly=true
[
11:44am
]
balunasj
:
I'll followup with sean at tomorrow doc meeting about 3.3.3
[
11:44am
]
balunasj
:
items as well.
[
11:44am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
nbelaevski, just minor issue.. I still not added any styling so it looks differently.. could add.. it's seems easy one
[
11:45am
]
nbelaevski
:
ilya_shaikovsky: tx!
[
11:46am
]
balunasj
:
something I noticed was that there are alot of doc issues "resolved" in the release - most are just older issues that we resolved after 3.3.2.
[
11:46am
]
balunasj
:
so they are already in the docs for BETA1
[
11:46am
]
balunasj
:
ok so on to rFPL
[
11:47am
]
balunasj
:
one of big items needed for release is to finalize the wiki page for JSF 2 support with any updates or known issues that are not there yet.
[
11:47am
]
balunasj
:
RFPL-212
[
11:48am
]
balunasj
:
Also the JOPR tests were a requirement for CR1 as well - I'll be talking with shelly about this in more detail when I travel to Westford office
[
11:48am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: lfryc ppitonak any updates on the JOPR side?
[
11:48am
]
balunasj
:
I know this was in their court
[
11:48am
]
prabhat
:
lfryc: please :0
[
11:48am
]
lfryc
:
balunasj: no updates, JOPR team are still waiting for issues with Seam
[
11:49am
]
balunasj
:
lfryc: ok thanks - that is what I'll follow up on later in the week.
[
11:49am
]
lfryc
:
balunasj: I tried to got here Shelly or Ondra
[
11:49am
]
lfryc
:
balunasj: Yes, please
[
11:49am
]
balunasj
:
lfryc: sure
[
11:50am
]
balunasj
:
there are some other wiki updates in RFPL
[
11:50am
]
balunasj
:
should not be too big a deal
[
11:50am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: all tasks in RFPL and RF that are assigned to my team are doable for CR1
[
11:50am
]
pmuir joined the chat room.
[
11:50am
]
balunasj
:
ok great
[
11:51am
]
balunasj
:
the other issues we'll cover or move as needed.
[
11:51am
]
balunasj
:
I noticed that there are some issues for GA release already
[
11:52am
]
balunasj
:
these are all QE related
[
11:52am
]
balunasj
:
For 3.3.3.GA release I do not want to any RF jira's unless we review.  Ideally CR1 will be as close as possible to the GA release.
[
11:53am
]
balunasj
:
The RFPL jira's have more freedom because they typically do not effect the source
[
11:53am
]
LexD left the chat room.
[
11:53am
]
balunasj
:
I will send out exact details on the dates later today or tomorrow
[
11:54am
]
pyaschenko left the chat room. (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
[
11:54am
]
balunasj
:
With everything else going on at the same time I think we should have a code free date of Jan 29th
[
11:55am
]
balunasj
:
Distribution to QE by Feb 1st, and give QE up to 2 weeks to test.
[
11:55am
]
balunasj
:
Unless more bugs are found from the community or QE I don't want to add any more jira's for this release.
[
11:55am
]
balunasj
:
This should give amarkhel and other working on this time to also be part of the 4.0 discussions and tasks
[
11:56am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: nbelaevski : sound good?
[
11:57am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: good to me
[
11:57am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: keep in mind other planned releases as well
[
11:57am
]
balunasj
:
amarkhel: seem like it will fit in with plans?
[
11:57am
]
nbelaevski
:
yes, good
[
11:57am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: sure that is part of the juggle
[
11:58am
]
balunasj
:
ok so on to 4.0 quickly
[
11:58am
]
balunasj
:
As everyone should know we are going to have a ALPHA2 status review meeting tomorrow
[
11:58am
]
amarkhel
:
yes sound good
[
11:58am
]
balunasj
:
I'm very concerned because I have seen little activity on the status wiki pages that I emailed about before -http://community.jboss.org/wiki/RichFaces400ALPHA2Meetings-January2010
[
11:59am
]
balunasj
:
If these are not filled out there is little reason to have the meeting to review them!
[
11:59am
]
balunasj
:
I'll take some of this offline, but I think that ALPHA2 planning is priority for 4.0 atm
[
12:00pm
]
balunasj
:
if this means stop implementing something for a time then that is needed. 
[
12:00pm
]
balunasj
:
If we can't all get on the same page with status then there is no way we can effectively plan.
[
12:01pm
]
balunasj
:
I'll have to move this offline since I have another meeting now
[
12:01pm
]
balunasj
:
please take a look at the wiki pages, update were needed, and I'll do the same.
[
12:02pm
]
lfryc left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[
12:02pm
]
nbelaevski
:
ok, we'll do
[
12:02pm
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
balunasj, we understand this for sure and will be ready till the meeting
[
12:03pm
]
balunasj
:
ok great - thanks - please let me know if you have questions or I have made mistakes in the assignments.