[Cosmo] A couple big ideas: cosmo release and server project merge
aparna at osafoundation.org
Fri Feb 3 18:00:38 PST 2006
Sorry, I am just catching up on this thread. Thanks to Sheila for
bringing it to my attention.
As far as releasing Cosmo 0.3 with Scooby 0.1 we definitely need to
include additional cycles for testing Cosmo 0.3 features which was
originally not planned for. As for the Chandler + Cosmo integration
tests, I am a little unclear on what features will be part of cosmo 0.3
that will be required for Chandler 0.7. This will be particularly
important as we do a Chandler milestone release (in the next month or so?).
Also I am a little unclear about whether we should we upgrade cosmo-demo
with every minor release of cosmo or should we freeze it to a working
version that works with Chandler and only upgrade when the next set of
features required by Chandler are in?
In that case we might also need a seperate cosmo-demo2 instance or
whatever of Cosmo that works with the latest version of scooby.
Not sure what's the best strategy here.
We probably need to have a broader meeting to understand all the
implications of this decision.
Sheila Mooney wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Sheila Mooney wrote:
>>> I haven't had a chance to catch up on this thread so sorry if this
>>> is not relevant or has already been discussed.
>>> What does this mean for Chandler? There are features in Cosmo 0.3
>>> that Chandler 0.7 will it will be a while before we are able to do
>>> any integration testing.
>>> Does this mean Chandler will use Cosmo 0.4?
>> Chandler 0.7 will probably rely on Cosmo 0.4, although there's a
>> small chance Cosmo 0.3 (or 0.3.x) would happen to have all the
>> features Chandler 0.7 needed as well as all the bug fixes. But
>> releasing 0.3 in Feb won't delay integration testing or any other
>> Chandler work -- it's just a renumbering as far as Chandler is
>> concerned. You can think of a Feb release as "Half of Cosmo 0.3"
>> but calling it 1.5 would be even more confusing! :) You'll get the
>> other half of Cosmo 0.3 in another few months but we'll be calling
>> it 0.4.
>>> Will we just have 0.3.x like we did for the last release?
>> Probably, but those will be bug fix releases for cosmo-demo,
>> foxclouds or other sites, rather than new features on top of 0.3
>> that Chandler 0.7 would need.
>>> We we also have performance goals for 0.7 Chandler sharing/ synching
>>> and this may also have implications for work on Cosmo. Is that
>>> Cosmo 0.3.x or Cosmo 0.4?
>> It depends. If it's big perf work but still manageable in the
>> Chandler 0.7 timeframe, then we'd probably slate that in 0.4 work,
>> and promise 0.4 by the time Chandler 0.7 needs it. If it could be
>> classified as a bug fix or minor tuning it might make it into
>> 0.3.x. Does Chandler planning need to know that?
> I don't think we have to know. Until we pick some target performance
> goals for synching and investigate the options, we don't even know
> what work (if any) will affect Cosmo. Once we have better visibility
> on this we can determine if it's appropriate to target fixes for
> 0.3.x or 0.4. I really only wanted to mention it since we really
> hadn't talked about the Chandler 0.7 work that might affect Cosmo
> (outside of the free-busy stuff).
>>> I guess I am just saying that I can easily see issues that will
>>> come up. What happens if a fix for Chandler breaks Scooby (no idea
>>> about the likelyhood here but..you never know).
>> Then that would be a bug in Scooby, as Scooby will need to be able
>> to handle whatever data is legal for any client to upload to cosmo.
>>> Another thing we need to do in order to release Cosmo 0.3 is test
>>> it with Chandler. I am assuming by release we mean upgrade Cosmo
>>> Demo? In that case Aparna will have to do some kind of sanity
>>> testing. Perhaps this will be minimal but I am pretty sure she
>>> hasn't planned for this. We told her originally that we would be
>>> releasing Scooby 0.1 with some snapshot of Cosmo but not upgrading
>>> Cosmo Demo.
>> By release we mean send it out to the world, as well as upgrade
>> Cosmo Demo. Foxcloud would probably consider upgrading too. Who
>> knows, maybe some other site will pick up Cosmo too. And yes Aparna
>> is an important contributor to this decision (she was there when it
>> was first brought up).
> Ok...so Aparna is in the loop. I must have missed that in the
> discussions :-).
>> thanks sheila!
>> -- Lisa
>>> On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>>> 1. Merge Cosmo and Scooby SVN trees, mailing list and IRC channel.
>>>> 2. Release Cosmo 0.3 -- less ambitious than previously planned --
>>>> in time for Scooby 0.1
>>>> Ok, what are we thinking here?
>>>> It's been six months since we released Cosmo 0.2 (September 19).
>>>> In those six months, we have done significant work on Cosmo.
>>>> There's all the bug fixes in the 0.2 branch, CalDAV work and a
>>>> rough administrative GUI in the 0.3 trunk. It seems worthwhile to
>>>> consider another release now, particularly since Scooby 0.1 is
>>>> slated for release in February and has dependencies on Cosmo
>>>> CalDAV features.
>>>> With the work ramping up to releasing Scooby, we've seen a need
>>>> for a combined download/build to make things ultimately easy for
>>>> people who want to check out Scooby. BCM threw this together
>>>> quickly, including Scooby, Cosmo, Jackrabbit and Tomcat, all in
>>>> one bundle and ready-to-go. Needing a name for this, BCM (and
>>>> others) picked Snarf. That resulted in some meta conversations
>>>> like "is Snarf a project" and "what is a project" and asking
>>>> ourselves if this would confuse people or seem sensible.
>>>> One possible fix to avoid having another SVN module, and thus
>>>> require another name, is to combine Cosmo and Scooby under one SVN
>>>> module, and have a "scooby-complete" download or build that
>>>> includes everything Snarf does. When BCM thought of this today in
>>>> the server meeting there were surprised approval sounds all around
>>>> the room and people also thought of the advantages of moving to a
>>>> single mailing list and IRC channel if we'd like. We'd keep
>>>> releases of Cosmo and Scooby still possibly independent. E.g. a
>>>> release of Cosmo might happen in one month, and a release of
>>>> Scooby with a "scooby-complete" including that release of Cosmo
>>>> could happen a week later, a month later, or whatever seems best.
>>>> Preserving the ability to do independent releases of the sharing
>>>> server and the calendar WebUI, what's the best way to manage both
>>>> in SVN? in community forums?
>>>> Whether or not we merge server communities, what would we have to
>>>> do to release Cosmo 0.3?
>>>> - Do a small bit of spit and polish on the new administrative
>>>> GUI. Priscilla is signed up for at least some of this.
>>>> - Do a data upgrade tool, the one thing we promised for 0.3 that
>>>> we don't want to defer -- BCM
>>>> - Fix some CalDAV REPORT issues that would be really useful for
>>>> Scooby -- BKirsch with Bobby's input
>>>> - Fix current build issues and ensure we are satisfied with this
>>>> -- BCM and Bear, I think
>>>> - Check in more automated tests than we had in 0.2 -- Heikki is
>>>> on this already
>>>> - Todd Agolnick might contribute tests to Cosmo in time -- I
>>>> asked him to mail this list
>>>> Is this correct or am I missing anything? Discussion, approval
>>>> votes or concerns, anybody?
>>>> Cosmo mailing list
>>>> Cosmo at osafoundation.org
> Cosmo mailing list
> Cosmo at osafoundation.org
More information about the Cosmo