Item | Description | CCB Notes |
---|
Flagged RFCs (To be approved by the DMCCB) | | - RFC-581: Kian-Tat Lim still need to do some cleaning
- RFC-584:
- Everybody agree with the actual environment upgrade, RFC set to "Board Recommend"
- John Swinbank suggest to use the conda env as source of true
- Tim Jenness conda environment need to be RFC before changes, but including (EUPS) 3rd party package, that now change quite a lot, this requires a quicker approach
- Minor updates on some packages could be done without explicit CCB approval
- Tim Jenness to announce the new conda env when available
- RFC-586:
- RFC-588: board approve it, status set to "Board Recommend"
|
Proposed RFCs (to review, do not require DMCCB approval) | | - RFC-583 shall be withdraw, once the new conda env is out, everybody can use the numba package at the latest version
- Unknown User (gcomoretto) to check that numba install in the new conda environment (RFC-584, in linux) and comment on RFC-583
- RFC-587: John Swinbank point out that this RFC need to escalate, status set to flagged
- RFC-585: no actions to be taken by the board
|
Adopted RFCs without Triggering issues (to create implementing DM issues) | | |
Adopted RFCs with all triggered work COMPLETED (to set status as 'IMPLEMENTED') | | |
RFCs adopted since last CCB (to review, no action required) | |
|
RFCs implemented since last CCB (to review, no action required) | |
|
Changes to the planned releases | - 18.0 Release to be planned
| - John Swinbank commented that previous minutes is confusing: do 18.0 in 3 months but at the same time we go on feature releases
- this is because we still had no time to plan releases based on features.
- Kian-Tat Lim commented that feature based releases should be more frequent, instead of less.
- Tim Jenness says we are already delaying releases, in order to get feature in it, this means we are already doing releases based on feature.
- John Swinbank would like to see a document that describes the polices behind releases: Leannes document should be that document (LDM-672)
- John Swinbank suggestion is to .
- This is in line with the plan to do 18.0 3 months after 17.0
|
Monitor Jira issues status: - the most forgotten 10 DM issues
- (resolution = Unresolved ORDER by updated asc)
| | - Pre-meeting comments from John Swinbank :
- DM-2369 and DM-2368 are valid issues but with a relatively low priority. 2368 is blocked by , which requires action from Robert Lupton, but is unlikely to be a high priority for him & the SST.
- DM-932 is a configuration system issue, which is nominally a DAX problem so I've assigned it appropriately. However, this issue seems low priority, and I do not expect them to work on it soon.
- I closed all the other issues before the meeting.
|
| - Should the DMCCB not be considering the RFC _after_ the triggered tickets have been created, rather than before?
| - Having related issues is already a way to document the RFC proposal
- After a short discussion, everybody agree that the board can ask for triggered issues to be open before approving the RFC
- Tim Jenness to clarify in the Developer Guide that the DM-CCB can ask triggered issues can be opened on an RFC before approving it.
|