Meeting on May 18, 2009

Agenda

1. Attendance
2. Announce agenda
3. Approve May 4, 2009 Meeting Notes. Ask for review and address any problems seen in the notes.
4. Discuss the 4.3.0rc1 rollup and status of 4.3.0.
5. Discuss options for auto-building core maintained extensions (such as IDL).
6. Open Questions
7. Summary and closing

Notes

Attendance

• tclarke
• dsulgrov
• kstreith
• gmartin_cn
• raevans
• rgoffena
• dadkins
• mconsidi (partial)

Summary

The 4.3.0rc1 rollup is underway. It's a little behind schedule but we hope to make up the lost time and have an on-time final release.

The EXTRAS project should be built by Hudson. Building against the latest nightly Opticks is beneficial to the core developers as it tests the latest combination. Building against an older SDK is beneficial to users as they don't need the latest unofficial Opticks nightly as well. kstreith will set something up after the rollup which can be commented on via the mailing list.

Decisions

Logs

2009-05-18T11:02:43 <tclarke> ok, let's get started with attendance
2009-05-18T11:02:43 <tclarke> here
2009-05-18T11:02:46 <dsulgrov> here
2009-05-18T11:02:51 <tclarke> last meeting's notes are here: https://wiki.ballforge.net/confluence/display/opticksChat/May+4%2C+2009+Meeting+Notes
2009-05-18T11:02:52 <kstreith> here
2009-05-18T11:02:57 <gmartin_cn> here
2009-05-18T11:02:57 <tclarke> let me know before the end of the meeting if there are problems, otherwise I'll consider them approved
2009-05-18T11:04:17 <raevans> here
2009-05-18T11:04:23 <tclarke> 1. Attendance
2009-05-18T11:04:23 <tclarke> 2. Announce agenda
2009-05-18T11:04:23 <tclarke> 3. Approve May 4, 2009 Meeting Notes. Ask for review and address any problems seen in the notes.
2009-05-18T11:04:23 <tclarke> 4. Discuss the 4.3.0rc1 rollup and status of 4.3.0.
2009-05-18T11:04:23 <tclarke> 5. Discuss options for auto-building core maintained extensions (such as IDL).
2009-05-18T11:04:23 <tclarke> 6. Open Questions
2009-05-18T11:04:24 <tclarke> 7. Summary and closing
2009-05-18T11:04:26 <rgoffena> here
2009-05-18T11:04:27 <dadkins> here
2009-05-18T11:04:32 <tclarke> the 4.3.0 rollup has finally started after a couple of delays
2009-05-18T11:04:36 <tclarke> kstreith is working on it now
2009-05-18T11:04:50 <tclarke> this puts us slightly behind schedule but we are going to try and make up the lost time and are still planning on an on-time final release
2009-05-18T11:04:56 <tclarke> anything to add re: the rollup?
2009-05-18T11:05:09 <tclarke> ok, the other item on the agenda today revolves around the EXTRAS project
2009-05-18T11:06:22 <dsulgrov> the roadmap in JIRA is up-to-date if people are interested in seeing which issues are being integrated into 4.3.0
2009-05-18T11:06:26 <mconsidi> here
2009-05-18T11:06:50 <tclarke> for those who don't know we now have another project on ballforge. extras.ballforge.net contains extensions officially maintained by the core developers which are not a part of the Opticks core
2009-05-18T11:06:56 <tclarke> right now the IDL scripting exitension is in there
2009-05-18T11:07:04 <tclarke> the question I'd like to discuss briefly has to do with autobuilds
2009-05-18T11:07:14 <tclarke> should we autobuild these extensions as part of the normal autobuild schedule?
2009-05-18T11:07:20 <tclarke> if so, should we build against the normal trunk checkout of an SDK?
2009-05-18T11:08:47 <tclarke> how should we configure the builds to occur? (a single project with extra steps or a separate project requiring an sdk from a previously built nightly)
2009-05-18T11:08:48 <tclarke> .
2009-05-18T11:08:57 <tclarke> I think we should definately build EXTRAS as part of the nightly autobuile
2009-05-18T11:09:03 <dsulgrov> I agree that it sounds like it would be beneficial to have the auto-build
2009-05-18T11:09:13 <dadkins> i think we need to have some sort of autobuild system. as for details, those are up for debate. what would be the quickest thing to set up?
2009-05-18T11:09:26 <kstreith> i think having one set-up that always compiles against a given SDK
2009-05-18T11:09:29 <tclarke> quickest would be to build against the trunk as part of the same project....I think we need to build against the SDK tho
2009-05-18T11:10:46 <kstreith> is the best short-term option
2009-05-18T11:10:51 <tclarke> should it be 1 project or 2 chained projects?
2009-05-18T11:11:06 <dsulgrov> new releases of the extensions will not always occur at the same time as Opticks releases, correct?
2009-05-18T11:11:08 <tclarke> correct
2009-05-18T11:11:16 <dsulgrov> then building against the SDK makes sense to me
2009-05-18T11:11:18 <kstreith> it's going to be easier to force manual updates of the SDK that extras uses
2009-05-18T11:11:26 <kstreith> The way Hudson does inter-project dependencies is "interesting"
2009-05-18T11:11:37 <dadkins> conceptually, i'm ok with building against an sdk, but how much more work does that require?
2009-05-18T11:11:38 <tclarke> cant's we wget from the latest successful nightly? instead of a manual update
2009-05-18T11:11:41 <tclarke> it already builds against the SDK manually
2009-05-18T11:13:01 <tclarke> it's all a matter of setting up hudson to get an SDK
2009-05-18T11:13:15 <kstreith> yeah, the tricky part is Hudson is telling it when to go
2009-05-18T11:13:19 <kstreith> that and finding an equiv to wget on Windows
2009-05-18T11:13:33 <tclarke> can't we set it up like the current nightly and just give it enough time between the core and extras to catch that nightly?
2009-05-18T11:13:35 <tclarke> worse case, we get a day out of sync
2009-05-18T11:17:25 <kstreith> most end-users of idl, i think would want the latest build of the IDL code against the oldest possible SDK, this gives users more versions of Opticks that they can install IDL onto
2009-05-18T11:17:36 <tclarke> but it does not check that it continues to build....that brings up a fundamental question
2009-05-18T11:17:37 <kstreith> i think it is useful for devs to determine when the idl code won't build against an SDK (i.e. build every night against the latest SDK)
2009-05-18T11:17:44 <kstreith> but i think users might care more about the first, devs more about the second
2009-05-18T11:17:45 <tclarke> who is the auto nightly for? is it there to provide users with the latest features against the current release?
2009-05-18T11:17:46 <dadkins> sounds like we might have multiple projects?
2009-05-18T11:17:51 <tclarke> or is it there to test the build for correctness?
2009-05-18T11:17:58 <kstreith> for opticks, the current answer is both, it currently serves both audiences
2009-05-18T11:19:40 <tclarke> perhaps a build against the nightly as part of the nightly project to test the most recent
2009-05-18T11:19:49 <tclarke> and a separate project against the oldest compatible SDK (preferably a release SDK) for users
2009-05-18T11:20:14 <kstreith> seems reasonable for now
2009-05-18T11:20:19 <dadkins> what about a second digit version change? keep the old build and add a new build in addition to that?
2009-05-18T11:20:32 <tclarke> but then it will not work against 4.3.0 once 4.3.1 comes out and that may not be what we want
2009-05-18T11:21:49 <kstreith> if one build of IDL is part of the regular Opticks nightly, then yes we would create two Opticks nightly at that point
2009-05-18T11:24:32 *** rforehan has joined #opticks
2009-05-18T11:24:41 <tclarke> anything further? we can continue discussion on the mailing list later if needed
2009-05-18T11:24:50 <tclarke> for now, I suggest we have kstreith set something up based on this discussion once the rollup is completed
2009-05-18T11:26:27 <tclarke> anything further? we can continue discussion on the mailing list later if needed
2009-05-18T11:26:29 <tclarke> oops, didn't mean to repeat that
2009-05-18T11:26:43 <tclarke> ok, any other questions for today?
2009-05-18T11:30:46 <tclarke> ok, let's call this one done
2009-05-18T11:30:50 <tclarke> notes will go to the mailing list