ToDo

[rarified]

Mac, I haven't had time to fully explore the scheduling in JIRA, but have you found anything there to indicate sequences or dependencies? I just see a series of independent tasks.

If we had a dependency graph that could provide the milestones you're talking about.

Alternatively we.could do it with "releases" I 'suppose.

_R

[Mac_Fife]

No, I haven't found anything like that. It seem to be something that's frequently absent from software oriented PM tools . Possibly the Agile -> Planning Board gets closest.

But I was thinking of something even more basic, such as just using a forum thread where we could edit/update the status in one liner posts for each item. When "ready", you could edit the Post Icon to (and if you're running late you could use ). Just a thought. I don't want to go down the road of making reporting status a major task in itself.

[a'moaca']

Is Cyan's timing actually dependent on anything but us? As long as we are making consistent forward progress towards a reasonable goal, why would they not just wait 'til we're done? Somehow I got the impression that was what was going on. If so, I am not sure where the coordination planning comes in.

Is "get CWE to build" or "get CWE to run" on the list?

I am squashing bugs. MOSS needs another couple of weeks. I lost a lot of time to something new I added for the sake of the open source client era. As is somehow typical for me, not all of the bugs were mine. This batch included a nice libc bug.

- a'moaca'

[Mac_Fife]

Is Cyan's timing actually dependent on anything but us?

I don't believe it is. If there is anything on Cyan's end, it's probably a "no earlier than" simply in terms of Cyan being ready to make an announcement. Chogon said there was nothing specifically driving a date. Obviously, there's a desire to not take any longer than we need to and I just wasn't feeling that we each had visibility of the "readiness" of the other components, so if Chogon were to ask "will you be ready if we post the announcement on Monday?", I wouldn't really be able to answer.

It's not about trying to achieve any date, or create any undue pressure: It was just visibility of status, and I don't think getting too fine-grained is desirable. Just the big inhibitors to going public; there are a whole lot of little things that JW has mentioned to me that I'd roll up under one or other of the "headline" items I listed. It'd be up to the team to decide whether something is a headline item or not, so getting CWE to build may be an item if we wish it or maybe it's part of the Foundry being ready. Rarified may have an opinion on that.

If this is more hassle than it's worth then I'm fine with that. I wouldn't want this to be too much like the "day job" .

[rarified]

Well, from my perspective the biggest gating issue yet to be resolved is finishing an upgrade to my ISP link speed prior to announcement. The upgrade has been in the works for a while and the local telco is still working to make it right; the line tech is supposed to be out here again this afternoon. Of course we had snow/ice again last night so it will be pleasant for them to be working outside

The next issue in priority order is improving access control to the Mercurial repository. Right now access to any of the Hg repositories is proxied through Apache, which requires authentication for any access (just having a registered username/password in Crowd is sufficient). But fine-grained authorization (read-only, read-write) is configured in the mercurial ACL lists in a file, not consulting Crowd. So if there will be a lot of additions to the R/W list it will take a bit of work to keep up.

I'm working on getting Hg to have access to Crowd's group and user lists, but I'm still weighing some choices. There is no (to my knowledge) available connector for Mercurial to Crowd at the moment. As JW alluded to in another posting, Atlassain would happily accept a contributed one

Aside from those two, most of the Foundry is "ready". By that I mean we can host the Repo, serve it up to others, they can have access to JIRA and Fisheye (bugtracking, project planning, and repo browsing). I don't think I would demand that CWE "build" yet, although I do have some code analysis and doc tools, like doXygen I'd like to pass over the code to make it easier to browse.

The next step is when JW feels comfortable in uploading a copy of Cyan's material to the Hg repo. Then I can peek to see what dressings can be done.

_R

[Mac_Fife]

If rarified isn't comfortable with the link capacity then that would have to be a "blocker", I think. Unless we could come up with some other scheme that'd limit the access to spread out the initial load that will inevitably hit. We could possibly regulate the issuing of accounts, but that's probably not preferable.

I'd agree that "ready" doesn't always need to mean "complete", so whether or not CWE actually builds might just be something to be worked through as part of the Open Source effort. I think most people are expecting it to be incomplete anyway, so a version that builds is maybe a bonus. I think we should treat "ready" as meaning "stable enough to go public without embarassment"

@rarified: If you've got an idea of which links you'd like to see on the "Development" menu as entry points for the Foundry, then I can start to think about some page layout improvements.

[rarified]

There are as of now five public entry points to the Foundry.

Foundry Tools

• http://foundry.OpenUru.org/JIRA JIRA main page/dashboard (Bug/Issue tracking, Project Planning, Release Management)
• http://foundry.OpenUru.org/fisheye Fisheye main page/dashboard (Source browser, code review tools)
• http://foundry.OpenUru.org/hudson Jenkins (previously known as Hudson) Continuous Integration Build Manager

Foundry Repositories

• http://foundry.OpenUru.org/svn/Project Subversion repository for Project
• http://foundry.OpenUru.org/hg/Project Mercurial repository for Project

Any of those URLs can be reached through HTTPS as well.

The front page of the Foundry hasn't been written yet (and gives a permission denied error). I likely will simply redirect that back to the development page for now, but eventually I'd like to make it a status dashboard for the foundry, as well as a centralized Sign-Up/Login/Logout entry point. I may just put an MRTG traffic page there for grins.

Enough to get started with?

_R

[rarified]

@Mac: I don't have time to flesh it out right now, but the development page should also have a task/goal oriented section with items such as "What do I need to do to check out a copy of X source code", or "How do I file a bug, and what do I file it against?". I can work with you on that over time, especially as we choose final names for things.

_R

[Mac_Fife]

That sounds really good (both of the above posts), and it gives me some idea of how I should structure the page, which is probably fairly important, since it looks like being quite busy. I don't want to fan this out over multiple pages if it can be avoided, as I'd like to get people to what they want to do with the minimum number of clicks.

This page might be an opportunity to use the "hover help" pop-ups I was showing JW a little while back.

For the foundry entry points, should we direct everyone to the HTTPS variants by default, so that credentials aren't sent in the clear?

[a'moaca']

I'm still confused. If Cyan is waiting for us, why would they ask "will you be ready on Monday?" unless we had already told them we would be ready?

As for whether CWE building is required for "ready", well, that's what I'm trying to ask! I can't tell what the expectation is. If it doesn't have to build, why is there any talk about what's missing and how to replace it, yadda yadda, as a part of a Project X for release? I am looking for clarity too. "Maybe" is not good for setting goals and especially not for measuring readiness.

Perhaps this is what is bugging me about your list. You want to know if it's good to go and we don't even know what all we are supposed to get done. And yes, it's feeling just like the real job at the moment.

- a'moaca'