[Cosmo] A couple big ideas: cosmo release and server project merge

[Brian Moseley]

On 2/3/06, Aparna Kadakia <aparna at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> 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?).

i think everybody is in the same boat :) other than the mentions of
performance and freebusy that i heard in the presentation yesterday, i
know nothing about chandler 0.7's server requirements. i don't think
they've ever been articulated.

> 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?

i think the latter is the best policy .

> 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.

i think it's a lowest common denominator approach. when it's time to
ship chandler 0.7, cosmo-demo upgrades to the latest stable version of
cosmo that supports both chandler 0.7 and scooby 0.x. we just have to
make sure that 1) chandler and scooby's requirements are not somehow
incompatible and 2) set the release schedules so that there's enough
time to get the cosmo work done and tested.

> We probably need to have a broader meeting to understand all the
> implications of this decision.

feel free to schedule one ;)