[14:58:54] <balunasj> Hi all welcome to week two of the 4.0 ALPHA2 meetings - this week we'll wrap up various topics monday/tueday
[14:58:56] <balunasj> http://community.jboss.org/wiki/400ALPHA2MeetingScheduleJanuary2010
[14:59:15] <balunasj> and then later in the week review final plans and dates
[14:59:32] <balunasj> We'll give some people time to join in
[14:59:51] <nbelaevski> hello
[15:00:20] <balunasj> nbelaevski: hi nick
[15:00:29] <nbelaevski> balunasj: hi Jay
[15:01:05] <balunasj> nbelaevski: I've got a backlog of todo's from last weeks meetings, so please let me know if something critical comes up that needs immediate attention.
[15:01:51] <nbelaevski> balunasj: I'm reviewing transcripts and adding comments/JIRAs too
[15:02:27] <nbelaevski> balunasj: I'll ping you if anything will come up
[15:02:32] <balunasj> yeah I saw some of that.
[15:02:39] <nbelaevski> sure
[15:02:45] <balunasj> I've got those on my todo list as well.
[15:02:47] <balunasj> :-)
[15:03:17] <balunasj> plus various forum posts, and updates + setting up the project in openproject.
[15:03:19] *** Marauder has joined #richfaces
[15:03:29] <balunasj> Marauder: I Ilya
[15:03:35] <Marauder> Hello All!
[15:03:37] *** Marauder is now known as ilya_shaikovsky
[15:04:01] <balunasj> Marauder: I always try to saw hi before you get a chance to change you nick :-)
[15:04:24] <ilya_shaikovsky> :)
[15:04:39] <balunasj> ok so lets get started - I know we are missing some people, but I think the migration topics we can cover.
[15:05:25] <balunasj> We had a discussion about this topic after JSFSummit
[15:05:33] *** pyaschenko has joined #richfaces
[15:05:36] <balunasj> and I wanted to follow up on that.
[15:05:39] <pyaschenko> Hi all
[15:06:16] <balunasj> Unfortunately I have not had a chance to create a good migration wiki page where we can capture this info.
[15:06:34] *** abelevich has joined #richfaces
[15:06:40] <abelevich> hi all
[15:06:51] <balunasj> Since the part of these meetings will be refreshing a lot of this information and plan I waited for this meeting to complete it.
[15:06:52] <nbelaevski> abelevich: pyaschenko: hi
[15:06:55] <balunasj> Hi guys
[15:07:26] <balunasj> In the previous meeting where we discussed migration we started to discuss two different items:
[15:08:12] <balunasj> 1) Possibility of a "bridge" to assist users where possible with compatibility between 3 and 4
[15:08:53] <balunasj> 1.1) Scripts or scanning code to assist in updating attribute names or identify parts of code that needs updating
[15:09:06] <balunasj> 2) Proper documentations and an example of the migration
[15:09:27] <balunasj> 2.1) taking something like the photo-album or another application and migrate to 4.0 from 3.3.3
[15:09:47] <balunasj> <end>
[15:10:15] <balunasj> does anyone have other topics that either we discussed, or new items?
[15:10:19] <balunasj> for this?
[15:11:01] <nbelaevski> 3) migration guide
[15:11:30] <nbelaevski> balunasj: I guess we need some review process for it
[15:11:35] <balunasj> nbelaevski: yeah - I think my #2 should be broken up in two diff things
[15:12:09] <balunasj> nbelaevski: review process for the docs in general?  or specifically for migration, or both?
[15:12:31] <balunasj> nbelaevski: given the critical nature of migration to our users I thin we need extra time/care/tasks
[15:12:50] <balunasj> for migration docs, qe, and dev review
[15:13:33] <nbelaevski> balunasj: migration guide is 70% ready and we need to review it periodically
[15:14:29] <nbelaevski> balunasj: process of review for docs in general worse discussion too
[15:14:32] <balunasj> nbelaevski: agreed, but I'm not sure how much I believe it could even be possible to be 70% complete
[15:14:38] <nbelaevski> balunasj: either as docs build
[15:15:03] <balunasj> I could believe the docs are 70% ready for what info is currently available
[15:15:15] <balunasj> but I think table migration alone could be a large topic
[15:15:22] <nbelaevski> balunasj: I've copied the number from the status
[15:15:23] <ilya_shaikovsky> yes this  sounds closer
[15:15:36] <balunasj> nbelaevski: yup I saw :-)
[15:16:11] <balunasj> as for review process for docs in general lets talk aobut the process you are used to from before.
[15:16:30] <nbelaevski> balunasj: ok, let's start from it
[15:16:36] <balunasj> how did you guys handle doc reviews in previous releases before I came on.
[15:16:38] <balunasj> ?
[15:17:26] <nbelaevski> ilya_shaikovsky and Sergey Smirnov were main reviewers
[15:17:28] <ilya_shaikovsky> documentation process gone in next way for oldest releases:
[15:18:15] <ilya_shaikovsky> 1) taksk for major features/components contained subtasks for documentation creation..
[15:18:24] <ilya_shaikovsky> 2) this subtasks were filled by us with main info (or the info was shared by wiki or addition in mails) about topic
[15:18:39] <ilya_shaikovsky> 3) subtasks was assigned only when the feature/component finished in draft
[15:18:54] <ilya_shaikovsky> 4) doc team started to describe using info provided and dev samples
[15:19:06] <ilya_shaikovsky> then after them complete draft we reviewed it
[15:19:57] <balunasj> ilya_shaikovsky: who was "we"?
[15:20:01] <balunasj> you and Sergey?
[15:20:09] <balunasj> or others as well
[15:20:13] <ilya_shaikovsky> doc team in the past never worked using only requirements in parallel with development
[15:20:16] <ilya_shaikovsky> me Sergey and Nick
[15:20:23] <ilya_shaikovsky> and author of particular feature
[15:20:35] <balunasj> ilya_shaikovsky: good
[15:20:36] <ilya_shaikovsky> others were welcome for sure :)
[15:20:42] <balunasj> sure
[15:20:56] <ilya_shaikovsky> but normally it was enough if we and author made review
[15:21:05] <balunasj> ok
[15:21:15] *** ilya_shaikovsky has quit IRC
[15:21:40] <balunasj> d'oh - Ilya dropped off :-(
[15:21:51] <balunasj> let give him time to come back
[15:21:56] <nbelaevski> balunasj: he promises to get back very soon
[15:22:02] <balunasj> np
[15:22:08] *** Marauder has joined #richfaces
[15:22:18] *** Marauder is now known as ilya_shaikovsky
[15:22:26] <ilya_shaikovsky> I'm back.. sorry client crashed
[15:22:30] <balunasj> np
[15:22:40] <balunasj> ilya_shaikovsky: Thanks for the process review from before
[15:22:57] *** alexsmirnov has joined #richfaces
[15:23:19] <balunasj> I think we should follow a similar path, but also make this part of the migration process for components and new components.
[15:23:21] *** lightguard_jp has joined #richfaces
[15:23:33] <balunasj> We'll need this also as part of migration guide, and other large areas
[15:23:40] <balunasj> alexsmirnov: good morning :-)
[15:23:41] <alexsmirnov> Hi all!
[15:23:44] <abelevich> hi
[15:24:07] <nbelaevski> alexsmirnov: good morning
[15:24:13] <balunasj> does anyone think parts of this process should change?
[15:24:55] <balunasj> as for letting docs know of jira, updates that require docs I still feel "effects documentation" is an important tool for that.
[15:25:30] <nbelaevski> balunasj: I think for time-boxed release we'll need to specify timing for "docs freeze"
[15:25:45] <ilya_shaikovsky> balunasj, QA and docs tasks normally was assigned to Nick till the time when it's ready for review/description.. then Nick assigned the tasks to proper team person
[15:25:59] <nbelaevski> balunasj: to have enough time for review
[15:26:10] *** prabhat1 has joined #richfaces
[15:26:18] <ilya_shaikovsky> nbelaevski, I think there will be enough time during QE
[15:26:43] <nbelaevski> ilya_shaikovsky: ok
[15:27:03] <balunasj> ilya_shaikovsky: the problem with that is updates in docs during QE
[15:27:26] <balunasj> after the build is made.
[15:27:42] <ilya_shaikovsky> yup.. it's reasonable
[15:28:08] <nbelaevski> balunasj: but we can have separate builds
[15:28:12] <balunasj> because for 4.0 distributions will be built in hudson, updates to docs would need a new build.
[15:28:42] <ilya_shaikovsky> but if some component not ready even for initial QE - I think it's not ready for description also.. Sean could spent much time to some functionality which potentially could be changed in some way during development
[15:28:50] <balunasj> nbelaevski: but the distribution that get uploaded will come from hudson, and the final distribution will contain docs
[15:29:04] <balunasj> I want to avoid manual packaging of docs in dist
[15:29:19] <balunasj> unless we go with a separate docs download like jdk does
[15:29:49] <nbelaevski> balunasj: yes, assembled distribution will include docs. but we can still re-assemble using previously built binaries and verify the whole package
[15:30:25] <nbelaevski> balunasj: this can give us some more time to allow docs updates...
[15:31:07] <balunasj> nbelaevski: to add to your argument there will also be little time to review doc during the crunch time at end of dev cycle
[15:31:21] <balunasj> nbelaevski: ok so if we go that way we'll need several builds in hudson.
[15:31:35] <nbelaevski> balunasj: yes
[15:31:37] <balunasj> nbelaevski: one that build the various modeules
[15:31:47] <balunasj> one that builds docs bundle
[15:31:55] <balunasj> one that puts them together
[15:32:28] <balunasj> so that the docs can be updated and the 3 build can re-package without touching framework modules
[15:32:33] <nbelaevski> yes
[15:32:55] <balunasj> otherwise qe testing would be partially invalidated because of possible build issues.
[15:33:19] <balunasj> ok - I'll add this to assembly requirements
[15:33:21] <balunasj> and jira's when I complete them.
[15:35:06] <balunasj> so lets get back to migration if we can.  I think the plans for docs and the process from before is acceptable - although we might have some updates once other process put in practice
[15:35:07] *** prabhat has quit IRC
[15:37:53] <balunasj> first - I do not think that the migration is a priority requirement for ALPHA2
[15:38:17] <balunasj> I just wanted to continue the discussion from before so I can create the wiki.
[15:39:56] <balunasj> we discussed some points that made the bridge complicated, and would limit its ability to be a drop in complete bridge
[15:40:20] <balunasj> with the development and discussions since then are there any new migration bridge concerns for point to discuss?
[15:42:57] <nbelaevski> balunasj: we can review API migration possibility
[15:43:19] <balunasj> ok if not then I'll create the wiki from the previous discussion
[15:43:21] <balunasj> nbelaevski: oh sorry cross posted.
[15:43:28] <balunasj> nbelaevski: please go on
[15:43:38] <nbelaevski> balunasj: AJAX API migration, resources API migration
[15:43:58] <nbelaevski> balunasj: however that seems like a complex task
[15:45:06] <balunasj> would this be a mapping from one to the other, or would code need to be created/migrated to keep support for something that has changed in 4.0?
[15:45:32] <balunasj> I would think both, but the where functionality has changed may be where the bridge can not work
[15:45:35] <balunasj> completely
[15:46:18] <nbelaevski> balunasj: big piece of functionality has migrated into JSF 2.0
[15:46:44] <nbelaevski> balunasj: so code need to be migrated/created I think
[15:47:19] <balunasj> that is what I was afraid of.
[15:47:46] <balunasj> some of our older apis just do not map to new ones in meaningful way
[15:48:30] <nbelaevski> balunasj: yes and we are going to remove legacy code
[15:49:40] <balunasj> we'll have to revisit this I think, we can not focus on it too much for ALPHA2 and I think there may issues we have not even thought of.
[15:50:06] <balunasj> it might make the task of scripts or scanning code to ID/update where changes are needed more important.
[15:50:12] <nbelaevski> balunasj: also CDK is part of the project, so migration may include migration strategy for 3.x components
[15:50:28] <nbelaevski> balunasj: that's not for A2 for sure
[15:50:35] <balunasj> yeah
[15:50:40] <balunasj> could not agree more
[15:51:52] <nbelaevski> balunasj: we may want to add detection of the common issues in JSF application into this code also. e.g. nested forms
[15:52:06] <balunasj> nbelaevski: good point
[15:52:09] <balunasj> I agree
[15:52:43] <balunasj> it might be more efficient for us to create the scanner, and assist users in migration, than to attempt to create a bridge that might hide issues
[15:52:51] * balunasj just a thought
[15:54:19] <balunasj> ok lets shelf this more now
[15:54:36] <balunasj> I'll create the wiki and mark for later release review
[15:55:20] <balunasj> lets take a 5-10 minute break and come back and discuss examples and requirments for that.