Flagged RFCs
(To be approved by the DMCCB)
Planned end: Jun/14/2019
Planned end: Mar/15/2019
None
None
Proposed RFCs
(to review, do not require DMCCB approval)
Planned end: Jun/29/2019
Planned end: May/30/2019
Planned end: Jun/01/2019
Planned end: Jun/14/2019
- RFC-600 to be flagged:
- DMCCB#17 (2019 - 05 - 29) : not sure if it is to flag
- DMCCB#17 (2019 - 05 - 29) : need to be flagged since we need the DMCCB to be agreed before going to the project CCB
- DMCCB#17 (2019 - 05 - 29) to clarify the scope of RFC-600
- RFC-599: DMCCB agrees on the RFC but no action from to be taken
- RFC-598: should have been flagged
- if no comments, the RFC is approved
- RFC-585: no rush
Adopted RFCs without Triggering issues
(to create implementing DM issues)
None
Adopted RFCs with all triggered work COMPLETED
(to set status as 'IMPLEMENTED')
None
RFCs adopted since last CCB
(to review, no action required)
RFCs implemented since last CCB
(to review, no action required)
- 18.0 Release status
- Community post out
- Planned first Release Candidate based on w_2019_22 (June the first)
Monitor Jira issues status:
- the most forgotten 10 DM issues
- (resolution = Unresolved ORDER by updated asc)
Support to J. Swinbank monitoring activity
4061 unresolved issues (4053 on May the 21st)
Pre-meeting notes from DMCCB#17 (2019 - 05 - 29):
- With the exception of DM-4803, these are all Qserv issues. We should ask DMCCB#17 (2019 - 05 - 29) to address them.
- DM-4803 is broadly part of the same grouping as the persistence format questions we addressed last week (DM-4621, DM-4629). It's less unambiguously correct than those, though: we can clearly say that FITS files ought to be documented and/or self-documenting, but I struggle to get excited about whether they contain radians or degrees.
