• Created by Unknown User (gcomoretto), last modified on May 29, 2019

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 15 Next »

Location

BrowserRoom SystemPhone Dial-in
https://bluejeans.com/761546516/
  1. Dial: 199.48.152.152 or bjn.vc
  2. Enter Meeting ID: 761546516 -or- use the pairing code

Dial-in numbers:

  • +1 408 740 7256
  • +1 888 240 2560 (US Toll-Free)
  • +1 408 317 9253 (Alternate Number)

Meeting ID: 761546516

(Back to the DMCCB page)

Time

From 9.00 to 09.30 PT, Wednesday, March the 6th.

Attendees

Regrets

DMCCB Meeting Goals

  • See DMCCB responsibilities listed in LDM-294 section 7.4

Discussion Items

ItemDescriptionCCB Notes

Flagged RFCs

(To be approved by the DMCCB)

RFC-575 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RFC-579 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RFC-581 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  • RFC-575: DMCCB approve it and it is moved to "Board Recommend"
  • RFC-579: changes are highlighted in red
    • Changed to "Board Recommend"
  • RFC-581: to be decided next week

Proposed RFCs

(to review, do not require DMCCB approval)

RFC-578 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  • No action to be taken from the DMCCB

Adopted RFCs without Triggering issues

(to create implementing DM issues)

None


Adopted RFCs with all triggered work COMPLETED

(to set status as 'IMPLEMENTED')

RFC-571 - Getting issue details... STATUS


RFCs adopted since last CCB

(to review, no action required)

RFC-576 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RFC-577 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RFC-573 - Getting issue details... STATUS


RFCs implemented since last CCB

(to review, no action required)

RFC-555 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RFC-559 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RFC-558 - Getting issue details... STATUS


Changes to the planned releases
  • New patch release based on 17.0 major release required:
    • RFC-580 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Question from John Swinbank : do we maintain 6 month schedule release or do we switch to releases based on functionality availability?
    • In practice: when will be science pipelines release 18?
  • 17.0 done
    • pipelines.lsst.io need to be updated with 17.0 information
    • Community post done today, linking to the 17.0.x branch documentation and updated when JSick will update pipelines.lsst.io
  • 17.0.1: approved, RFC set to "Board Recommend".
    • Unknown User (gcomoretto) to create the patch release 17.0.1 implementation issue, backport the change and work with Jonathan Sick to include this information in the release note.
  • Next release 18:
    • in 3 months time (June 2019)
    • WOM: would like to see releases based on features
    • Leanne: community also would like to see feature base release
    • Feature information is provided to T/CAMs from P6 and scientists; these are recorded in Jira as epics
    • What is missing is to relate these epics to a planned release

Monitor Jira issues status:

  • the most forgotten 10 DM issues
    • (resolution = Unresolved ORDER by updated asc)

Support to J. Swinbank monitoring activity

  1. DM-2393 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  2. DM-2790 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  3. DM-2826 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  4. DM-2824 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  5. DM-2820 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  6. DM-2589 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  7. DM-2587 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  8. DM-2563 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  9. DM-2810 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  10. DM-2819 - Getting issue details... STATUS

3746 unresolved issues (3674 on Feb. the 20th)


All 10 issues have been reviewed during the CCB.

AOB
  • Should the DMCCB not be considering the RFC _after_ the triggered tickets have been created, rather than before?
  • AOB on RFC moved to next DM-CCB
  • LDM-635 draft in docushare need to be sent out for review
  • Semantic Versioning 2.0
    • Tim Jenness would like to apply it to each GitHub packages, it will simplify the dependencies management
      • This requires lot of work and has impacts on the build tools, continuous integration tools, releases, etc
    • Everybody agree that SemVer is the direction to move
  • An intermediate solution is to apply SemVer to to metapackages, that group together a smaller number of GithHub packages. This requires:
    • a proposal written down
    • do some experimentation to see how it works
      • to do after conda env management has been clarified. See DM-16567 - Getting issue details... STATUS


Pending Flagged RFCs

Key Summary
Refresh

Pending Proposed RFCs

Key Summary
Refresh

Oldest issues

Key Summary
Refresh

Meeting outcome


Pending DMCCB Actions

Task report

Looking good, no incomplete tasks.

  • No labels