From sacadmin Thu Jun 28 07:15:08 2007 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5SEF8hG008092 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id l5SEDOsV001429 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:psarc@sun.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JKC00B5DNIBPO00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for psarc@sun.com (ORCPT psarc@sun.com); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JKC0035MNI52P50@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for psarc@sun.com (ORCPT psarc@sun.com); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l5SEDHel003225 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JKC00J01NDQ8C00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from Cari.Towne@Sun.COM) for psarc@sun.com (ORCPT psarc@sun.com); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.149.2.140] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JKC00KBLNI1VM00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for psarc@sun.com (ORCPT psarc@sun.com); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:13:13 -0700 From: Cari Towne Subject: PSARC Meeting Minutes 06/20/2007 Inception: 2007/370; Inception: 2007/286 Sender: Cari.Towne@Sun.COM To: psarc@Sun.COM Cc: Lori.Alt@Sun.COM, Gao-Peng Chen , "Antoinette O'Sullivan" Reply-to: Cari.Towne@Sun.COM Message-id: <4683C1F9.2050502@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20060120 Status: RO Content-Length: 820 All, Meeting minutes for 06/20/2007 are now available: (1) http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.arcbiz Audio: http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.arcbiz.mp3 (2) http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.2007.370.inception Audio: http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.2007.370.inception.mp3 (3) http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.2007.286.inception Audio: http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.2007.286.inception.mp3 Sum up available at: http://sac.eng/Archives/Minutes/PSARC/2007/20070620.html If you have any corrections/feedback, please direct them to me. Thanks, Cari -- * Cari Towne * Program Coordinator *Sun Microsystems, Inc.* US Phone x87502/+1 650 786 7502 Email Cari.Towne@Sun.COM From owner-sac-advocates Thu Jan 24 13:11:07 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0OLB6iC022996 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m0OLANjs015823; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:10:27 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JV600M1V2TB2300@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:10:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JV600GET2TBI140@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:10:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (new-sac.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.175.65]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m0OLAMpp008621; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:10:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0OL2cMc022944 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m0OL2QHo028780 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:02:37 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JV600L0P2GC4900@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:02:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JV600MFZ2GB33D0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m0OL2ZJa001835 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:02:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JV60050122NA400@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:02:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.145.154.54] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JV6000MM2G9G550@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:02:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:02:33 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: LSARC Agenda 1/29/2008 - [2007/513], [2007/427], [2007/370] Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com Cc: Keith Babo , Jason Weinstein , Miloslav.Metelka@sun.com, Petr Suchomel , Andreas.Egloff@sun.com, Frank.Kieviet@sun.com Reply-to: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Message-id: <4798FCE9.1040800@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_IlAM1FEN2LWIy6lawnpRxQ)" X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) x_sac_archived: LSARC/2007/513 Status: RO Content-Length: 4818 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_IlAM1FEN2LWIy6lawnpRxQ) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT ============================================================================ Layered Software Architecture Review Committee LSARC ============================================================================ LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific) Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507 Video: Realtime: http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend (unless otherwise noted). LSARC meetings may be recorded. ========================================================================= ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE: 01/29/2008 10:00-11:00 Inception: Sierra_CAPS_Installer (2007/513 ) Submitter: jason.weinstein@sun.com Owner: Tom Childers Exposure: closed 11:00-Noon Commitment: Sierra_CAPS_Base_Components (2007/427 ) Submitter: keith.babo@sun.com Owner: tom.childers@sun.com Exposure: closed 12:00-12:15 Preinception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370 ) Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com Owner: Ed Hunter Intern: Rahul Shah Exposure: closed 12;15-12:45 ARC Business --Boundary_(ID_IlAM1FEN2LWIy6lawnpRxQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT 
============================================================================
	    Layered Software Architecture Review Committee

			    LSARC
============================================================================
	LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific)

        Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507
	Video: Realtime:      http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng
	       Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html
	       
	All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend
	(unless otherwise noted).     
	       
LSARC meetings may be recorded.
		
=========================================================================
ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE:

01/29/2008
  10:00-11:00   Inception: Sierra_CAPS_Installer (2007/513)
                Submitter: jason.weinstein@sun.com
                Owner: Tom Childers
                Exposure: closed
  11:00-Noon	Commitment: Sierra_CAPS_Base_Components (2007/427)
		Submitter: keith.babo@sun.com
                Owner: tom.childers@sun.com
		Exposure: closed
  12:00-12:15   Preinception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370)
                Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com
                Owner: Ed Hunter
                Intern: Rahul Shah
                Exposure: closed
  12;15-12:45   ARC Business
 --Boundary_(ID_IlAM1FEN2LWIy6lawnpRxQ)-- From sacadmin Tue Jan 29 14:57:17 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0TMvGqB001053 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:57:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m0TMvEKC025517 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:57:15 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVF0080BH3DS800@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVF002K0H3BPX30@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m0TMvBYr013218 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:57:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JVF00901EAX3M00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:57:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.145.154.54] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JVF00BLEH2K7790@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:56:45 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:56:44 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: LSARC Meeting Minutes 01/29/2008 - [2007/513], [2007/427], [2007/370] Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com Cc: Petr Suchomel , Jason Weinstein , Andreas Egloff , Keith Babo , Miloslav Metelka Reply-to: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Message-id: <479FAF2C.3000605@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) Status: RO Content-Length: 982 Minutes/Audio for LSARC 01/29/2007 are now available: - Arc Business: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080122.arcbiz Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080122.arcbiz.mp3 - Inception: Sierra_CAPS_Installer (2007/513) http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080129.2007.513.inception Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080129.2007.513.inception.mp3 - Commitment: Sierra_CAPS_Base_Components (2007/427) http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080129.2007.427.commitment Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080129.2007.427.commitment.mp3 - Preinception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370) http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080129.2007.370.preinception Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080129.2007.370.preinception.mp3 Please contact me directly if you require any corrections/modifications to these minutes. Aarti From owner-sac-advocates Fri Feb 1 10:43:53 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m11Ihr58009705 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:43:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m11IhJ1O006510; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:43:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVK00G0RPC7KG00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:43:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVK0058VPC4RR80@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:43:17 -0700 (MST) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (new-sac.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.175.65]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m11IhGm9059513; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:43:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m11IZd1D008803 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:35:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m11IZZjQ004070 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com>; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:35:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVK00A29OZDBP00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVK00AEPOZCAM00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m11IZapH018448 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:35:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JVK00901MVQJN00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:35:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.150.32.30] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JVK005BLOZ58U00@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:35:30 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:35:25 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: LSARC Agenda - 02/05/2008 - [2007/370], [2007/299] Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com Cc: Petr Suchomel , Miloslav Metelka , Karen Langford , Robert.Stephens@sun.com Reply-to: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Message-id: <47A3666D.5010200@Sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_N5NocUoYszEnGnLEL848aQ)" X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12pre (Windows/20080129) Status: RO Content-Length: 4906 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_N5NocUoYszEnGnLEL848aQ) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT ============================================================================ Layered Software Architecture Review Committee LSARC ============================================================================ LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific) Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507 Video: Realtime: http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend (unless otherwise noted). TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS: OPEN LSARC MEETINGS: Open Dial in - (866)545-5223 (Within US) - (865)673-9887 (International Access) - x44409 (direct dial inside Sun) Participant Code: 939 5 586# LSARC meetings may be recorded. ========================================================================= ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE: 02/05/2008 10:00-11:00 Open Inception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370 ) Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com Owner: Ed Hunter Intern: Rahul Shah Exposure: open 11:00-Noon Open Commitment: Berkeley_Database_4.5.20 (2007/299 ) Submitter: karen.langford@sun.com Owner: Terrence Miller Exposure: open 12:00-12:15 Open ARC Business 12:20-12:40 Closed ARC Business --Boundary_(ID_N5NocUoYszEnGnLEL848aQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT 
============================================================================
	    Layered Software Architecture Review Committee

			    LSARC
============================================================================
	LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific)

        Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507
	Video: Realtime:      http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng
	       Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html
	       
	All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend
	(unless otherwise noted).     
	       
	TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS:   
	
	OPEN LSARC MEETINGS:

	Open Dial in - (866)545-5223 (Within US)
		         - (865)673-9887 (International Access)
			 - x44409 (direct dial inside Sun)
	    Participant Code: 939 5 586#

LSARC meetings may be recorded.
		
=========================================================================
ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE:

02/05/2008     
  10:00-11:00  Open Inception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370) 
	       Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com
	       Owner: Ed Hunter
	       Intern:	Rahul Shah
	       Exposure: open
  11:00-Noon   Open Commitment: Berkeley_Database_4.5.20 (2007/299)
               Submitter: karen.langford@sun.com
               Owner: Terrence Miller
               Exposure: open
  12:00-12:15  Open ARC Business 
  12:20-12:40  Closed ARC Business
--Boundary_(ID_N5NocUoYszEnGnLEL848aQ)-- From owner-sac-advocates Fri Feb 1 11:09:41 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m11J9eFd011290 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:09:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m11J8gqO012653; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:08:43 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVK00B01QIIQ900@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVK00BQWQIHEG00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (new-sac.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.175.65]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m11J8fAX010463; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m11J13pt010485 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m11J0vxW009432 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com>; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:01:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVK00H3LQ5MWV00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:00:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from gmp-eb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVK005P5Q5ERI80@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:00:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe1.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.10]) by gmp-eb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m11J0oYC016798 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:00:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JVK00K01PWJ8700@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Miloslav.Metelka@Sun.COM) for lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:00:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.0.139] ([84.42.200.17]) by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JVK00JRQQ5DLU90@fe-emea-09.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@Sun.COM); Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:00:49 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:01:17 +0100 From: Miloslav Metelka Subject: Re: LSARC Agenda - 02/05/2008 - [2007/370], [2007/299] In-reply-to: <47A3666D.5010200@Sun.com> Sender: Miloslav.Metelka@sun.com To: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Cc: lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com, Petr Suchomel , Karen Langford , Robert.Stephens@sun.com Message-id: <47A36C7D.2010109@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A3666D.5010200@Sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) Status: RO Content-Length: 2328 I'm very sorry but I cannot attend the Tuesday meeting. Petr should be present. I have checked changes between NetBeans 6.0 and 6.0.1 and there are no changes that would come under our case. -Mila Aarti Pai wrote: > ============================================================================ > Layered Software Architecture Review Committee > > LSARC > ============================================================================ > LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific) > > Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507 > Video: Realtime: http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng > Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html > > All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend > (unless otherwise noted). > > TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS: > > OPEN LSARC MEETINGS: > > Open Dial in - (866)545-5223 (Within US) > - (865)673-9887 (International Access) > - x44409 (direct dial inside Sun) > Participant Code: 939 5 586# > > LSARC meetings may be recorded. > > ========================================================================= > ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE: > > 02/05/2008 > 10:00-11:00 Open Inception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370 ) > Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com > Owner: Ed Hunter > Intern: Rahul Shah > Exposure: open > 11:00-Noon Open Commitment: Berkeley_Database_4.5.20 (2007/299 ) > Submitter: karen.langford@sun.com > Owner: Terrence Miller > Exposure: open > 12:00-12:15 Open ARC Business > 12:20-12:40 Closed ARC Business > From sacadmin Mon Feb 4 17:30:41 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m151UfUj006874 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:30:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m151UfSb006458 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:30:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVQ00407S751R00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:30:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVQ00FHOS74JB90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:30:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m151Uegv016512 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:30:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JVQ00901RZFY000@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:30:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.18.126.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JVQ000UDS73T5C0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:30:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:32:48 -0800 From: Rahul Shah Subject: Issues for Netbeans core IDE LSARC/2007/370 Sender: Rahul.Shah@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com, Miloslav.Metelka@sun.com, Petr.Suchomel@sun.com Message-id: <47A7BCC0.5060101@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 354 rls-01: The imported interface table should use the new interface taxonomy as defined in http://sac.eng/cgi-bin/bp.cgi?NAME=interface_taxonomy.bp Stable should be changed to Committed. rls-02: The answers directory is empty.Was it suppose to have some files? rls-03: All the links in FunSpec are not functioning. Did you miss submitting some files? From sacadmin Mon Feb 4 18:33:49 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m152XmBn009269 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m152XkL1008940 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:33:47 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVQ00M05V48UX00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:33:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVQ00HXPV47H390@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m152XhDd004138 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:33:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JVQ00D01UXYCP00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:33:43 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.150.32.11] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JVQ00JZFV46NY60@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:33:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:33:42 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: Re: Issues for Netbeans core IDE LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47A7BCC0.5060101@sun.com> Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: Rahul Shah Cc: lsarc@sun.com, Petr Suchomel , Miloslav Metelka Message-id: <47A7CB06.8030004@Sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A7BCC0.5060101@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12pre (Windows/20080203) Status: RO Content-Length: 231 > > > rls-03: All the links in FunSpec are not functioning. Did you miss > submitting some files? ====>These links were pointing to contents in a javadoc.tar file. After decompressing, the links in FunSpec are working properly. From sacadmin Tue Feb 5 15:08:05 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m15N85lt015467 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m15N83d2028763 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JVS00F01G9HS100@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JVS00FF6G9GF500@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m15N845s008540 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:08:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JVS00F01G6HBM00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:08:04 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.145.154.54] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JVS00D3QG9CRY90@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:08:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:08:00 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: Meeting Minutes for LSARC - 02/05/2008 - [2007/370], [2007/299] Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com Cc: Petr Suchomel , Miloslav Metelka , Karen Langford , Rob Stephens Reply-to: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Message-id: <47A8EC50.7020908@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_F9jPKmE0ha/1WtfYcaJgCg)" X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) Status: RO Content-Length: 3584 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_F9jPKmE0ha/1WtfYcaJgCg) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Minutes/Audio for LSARC - 02/05/2008 are now available: - Arc Business: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.arcbiz Audio: Part 1: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.arcbiz.p1.mp3 Part 2: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.arcbiz.p2.mp3 - Open Inception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370 ) http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.370.inception Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.370.inception.mp3 - Open Commitment: Berkeley_Database_4.5.20 (2007/299 ) http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.299.commitment Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.299.commitment.mp3 Please contact me directly if you require any corrections/modifications to these minutes. Aarti --Boundary_(ID_F9jPKmE0ha/1WtfYcaJgCg) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Minutes/Audio for   LSARC - 02/05/2008 are now available:

- Arc Business:  http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.arcbiz
    Audio:  Part 1: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.arcbiz.p1.mp3
                 Part 2: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.arcbiz.p2.mp3

- Open Inception: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370) 
    http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.370.inception
    Audio:  http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.370.inception.mp3

- Open Commitment: Berkeley_Database_4.5.20 (2007/299)
    http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.299.commitment
    Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080205.2007.299.commitment.mp3

Please contact me directly if you require any corrections/modifications
to these minutes.

Aarti

--Boundary_(ID_F9jPKmE0ha/1WtfYcaJgCg)-- From sacadmin Fri Feb 29 11:11:21 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1TJBKnA024986 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m1TJB7O2017891 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-members@sun.com>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:11:18 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JX000H0TLAU8Y00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JX000CGCLAT3P80@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m1TJBHhi015771 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JX000J01L335B00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from John.Plocher@Sun.COM) for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from wp668.local ([208.74.177.212]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JX0004U1LASQHG0@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:11:16 -0800 From: John Plocher Subject: Re: ARC Case Owner Change for LSARC 2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 In-reply-to: <47C85596.9050605@sun.com> Sender: John.Plocher@sun.com To: Petr Suchomel Cc: Aarti Pai , Miloslav Metelka , Tom Childers , lsarc-members@sun.com Message-id: <47C858D4.2050508@Sun.Com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A8E17E.5040800@Sun.COM> <47C57F77.5070603@sun.com> <47C6FA76.4020305@Sun.COM> <47C71D23.7070009@sun.com> <47C72F6E.40206@Sun.com> <47C85596.9050605@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 3411 The ARC perspective is that very little of this kind of case material is *architectural* in nature; it does nothing to describe the architecture of your project or to point out the areas where you are making changes. As such, it contributes nothing to the review process except mind-numbing masses of unread materials. I consider javadoc to be design and implementation documentation - because it can not exist (by definition) until after you have done the implementation. As documentation for what you *did*, it is unsurpassed; for ARC review, though, we are instead focused on the future - what are you *intending* to do? The documents that capture that intent are usually much simpler - a couple of cloud and arrow pictures, a contextual overview, and a list of proposed changes - with their impact on expectations (past and future) called out. Think 10 to 20 pages, max. Anything more is effectively a complete waste of time - for you to produce and for the ARC to never have time to read. -John Petr Suchomel wrote: > Artii, > The issue is, this is generated from source files - we are not able to > split only some of documents. > --Petr > > Aarti Pai wrote: >> Hi Petr / Miloslav, >> >> LSARC prefers you send only the relevant materials that are needed for >> ARC members to review. >> Can you please send a standalone functional spec doc and whichever >> other docs you need ARC members >> to read? >> >> Un-tarring .zip files within your case dir is causing disk space and >> other issues particularly on the external / OSo site >> . I've CC'd John, to help clarify as needed. >> >> The next available time slot is 3/18/2008. See below for time. >> Let me know if this does not work or you prefer another day. >> >> 03/18/2008 >> 10:00-10:10 Closed ARC Business >> >> 10:15-10:25 Open ARC Business >> >> 10:25-11:25 Open Commitment: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 >> Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com >> Owner: Tom Childers >> Intern: Rahul Shah >> Exposure: open >> >> thanks, >> Aarti >> >> Petr Suchomel wrote: >>> Aarti, >>> These documents are update requested on last inception review. Could >>> you schedule us for next meeting? >>> --Petr >>> >>> Aarti Pai wrote: >>>> Is this update for commitment.materials? or inception.materials? >>>> thanks, >>>> Aarti >>>> >>>> Miloslav Metelka wrote: >>>>> Hi Aarti, >>>>> I would like to refresh a functional specification of the NetBeans >>>>> Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370) case with a new version. The zip is >>>>> available at >>>>> http://beetle.czech.sun.com/data/transfer/mmetelka/NetBeansCoreIDEModules.zip >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>> -Mila >>>>> >>>>> Aarti Pai wrote: >>>>>> Petr, Miloslav >>>>>> >>>>>> Today in LSARC meeting your case has been assigned a new >>>>>> owner Tom Childers. (Ed is on sabbatical.) Rahul Shah continues >>>>>> to be your intern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't hesitate to contact your case owner/intern or me if you have >>>>>> questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Name: NetBeans_Core_IDE_6.0 >>>>>> Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com >>>>>> Owner: Tom Childers >>>>>> Intern: Rahul Shah >>>>>> Interest: >>>>>> Exposure: open >>>>>> Status: inception held 02/05/2008 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Aarti >>>>>> >>>> >> From sacadmin Fri Feb 29 11:41:15 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1TJfFuO026092 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m1TJf2eL000706 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-members@sun.com>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:41:14 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JX000B3ZMOOSI00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JX0002BGMOM7ID0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe2.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.11]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m1TJfACA004797 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:41:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JX000H01MIOYB00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Petr.Suchomel@Sun.COM) for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:41:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.4.199] ([147.32.206.14]) by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JX000JB5MOLD200@fe-emea-09.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:41:10 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:41:09 +0100 From: Petr Suchomel Subject: Re: ARC Case Owner Change for LSARC 2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 In-reply-to: <47C858D4.2050508@Sun.Com> Sender: Petr.Suchomel@sun.com To: John Plocher Cc: Aarti Pai , Miloslav Metelka , Tom Childers , lsarc-members@sun.com, Jaroslav Tulach Message-id: <47C85FD5.80804@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A8E17E.5040800@Sun.COM> <47C57F77.5070603@sun.com> <47C6FA76.4020305@Sun.COM> <47C71D23.7070009@sun.com> <47C72F6E.40206@Sun.com> <47C85596.9050605@sun.com> <47C858D4.2050508@Sun.Com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) Status: RO Content-Length: 3877 Ho John, I understand. The issue is, this process has been developed in cooperation with wsarc? during last years and was used for every release review. I am pretty sure, this wouldn't be easy to change completely in any short term as far as this was result of many man hours over recent years. --Petr John Plocher wrote: > The ARC perspective is that very little of this kind of case material > is *architectural* in nature; it does nothing to describe the > architecture > of your project or to point out the areas where you are making changes. > As such, it contributes nothing to the review process except mind-numbing > masses of unread materials. > > I consider javadoc to be design and implementation documentation - > because it > can not exist (by definition) until after you have done the > implementation. As > documentation for what you *did*, it is unsurpassed; for ARC review, > though, we > are instead focused on the future - what are you *intending* to do? > > The documents that capture that intent are usually much simpler - a > couple of > cloud and arrow pictures, a contextual overview, and a list of proposed > changes - with their impact on expectations (past and future) called out. > > Think 10 to 20 pages, max. Anything more is effectively a complete > waste of > time - for you to produce and for the ARC to never have time to read. > > -John > > > > > > Petr Suchomel wrote: >> Artii, >> The issue is, this is generated from source files - we are not able >> to split only some of documents. >> --Petr >> >> Aarti Pai wrote: >>> Hi Petr / Miloslav, >>> >>> LSARC prefers you send only the relevant materials that are needed >>> for ARC members to review. >>> Can you please send a standalone functional spec doc and whichever >>> other docs you need ARC members >>> to read? >>> >>> Un-tarring .zip files within your case dir is causing disk space and >>> other issues particularly on the external / OSo site >>> . I've CC'd John, to help clarify as needed. >>> >>> The next available time slot is 3/18/2008. See below for time. >>> Let me know if this does not work or you prefer another day. >>> >>> 03/18/2008 >>> 10:00-10:10 Closed ARC Business >>> >>> 10:15-10:25 Open ARC Business >>> >>> 10:25-11:25 Open Commitment: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 >>> Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com >>> Owner: Tom Childers >>> Intern: Rahul Shah >>> Exposure: open >>> >>> thanks, >>> Aarti >>> >>> Petr Suchomel wrote: >>>> Aarti, >>>> These documents are update requested on last inception review. >>>> Could you schedule us for next meeting? >>>> --Petr >>>> >>>> Aarti Pai wrote: >>>>> Is this update for commitment.materials? or inception.materials? >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Aarti >>>>> >>>>> Miloslav Metelka wrote: >>>>>> Hi Aarti, >>>>>> I would like to refresh a functional specification of the >>>>>> NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370) case with a new version. The zip >>>>>> is available at >>>>>> http://beetle.czech.sun.com/data/transfer/mmetelka/NetBeansCoreIDEModules.zip >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>> -Mila >>>>>> >>>>>> Aarti Pai wrote: >>>>>>> Petr, Miloslav >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today in LSARC meeting your case has been assigned a new >>>>>>> owner Tom Childers. (Ed is on sabbatical.) Rahul Shah continues >>>>>>> to be your intern. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't hesitate to contact your case owner/intern or me if you have >>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Name: NetBeans_Core_IDE_6.0 >>>>>>> Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com >>>>>>> Owner: Tom Childers >>>>>>> Intern: Rahul Shah >>>>>>> Interest: >>>>>>> Exposure: open >>>>>>> Status: inception held 02/05/2008 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Aarti >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > From sacadmin Fri Feb 29 12:09:09 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1TK99qR027135 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m1TK996t028258 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-members@sun.com>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JX000D1BNZ74600@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JX00021ONZ67FF0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m1TK96Mp023066 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JX000301NNQQH00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from John.Plocher@Sun.COM) for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from wp668.local ([208.74.177.212]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JX000DFWNZ63G00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:09:05 -0800 From: John Plocher Subject: Re: ARC Case Owner Change for LSARC 2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 In-reply-to: <47C85FD5.80804@sun.com> Sender: John.Plocher@sun.com To: Petr Suchomel Cc: Aarti Pai , Miloslav Metelka , Tom Childers , lsarc-members@sun.com, Jaroslav Tulach Message-id: <47C86661.4060806@Sun.Com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A8E17E.5040800@Sun.COM> <47C57F77.5070603@sun.com> <47C6FA76.4020305@Sun.COM> <47C71D23.7070009@sun.com> <47C72F6E.40206@Sun.com> <47C85596.9050605@sun.com> <47C858D4.2050508@Sun.Com> <47C85FD5.80804@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 2078 Petr Suchomel wrote: > Ho John, > I understand. The issue is, this process has been developed in > cooperation with wsarc? during last years and was used for every release > review. > I am pretty sure, this wouldn't be easy to change completely in any > short term as far as this was result of many man hours over recent years. I'm not at all saying that this info is bad, but that it not the sort of thing one needs at every ARC review. Good, you did this. Consider it a baseline. Your *next* arc case simply has to presume that it exists, reference it from where you provided it to the ARC 'back then', and ONLY produce a document that tells what you intend to change based on what was said there. Note I'm *NOT* saying "produce a diff once you are done", as that defeats the whole purpose of doing architecture-change review *before* you commit to actually making those changes in your implementation... Very seriously, we are looking for you to take each and every bug report, RFE and new feature addition individually and do the following: Ask yourself if this bug/rfe impacts the committed architecture of your project. If your answer is "no", then congratulations, you just completed the whole ARC Review for that bug/rfe! If the answer is "yes", then you need to talk with someone who is "ARC aware" (might even be yourself...) and ask whether this bug/rfe is a simple or complex architectural change. If "simple", then your ARC sponsor files a fasttrack for you that includes the content of the bug report or RFE proposal (with evaluation), and you are done. The last choice is that you are doing something complicated. This is the "full ARC review", and is made easy by the fact that you are restricting it to a single new feature (or set of related features) At the end of a development cycle, you will find that you have reviewed each and every change that went into the new version of your project, and never once did you need to overwhelm yourselves or the ARC with a huge functional spec or documentation-for-review effort. -John From sacadmin Fri Feb 29 14:09:59 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1TM9xUE002310 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:09:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m1TM9sPg026396 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-members@sun.com>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:09:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JX00041RTKMCE00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:09:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JX0001SQTKLQT40@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:09:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe1.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.10]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m1TM9vJJ008218 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:09:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JX000501TF43S00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Jaroslav.Tulach@Sun.COM) for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:09:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.246] ([78.102.156.147]) by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JX000A0TTKJMGE0@fe-emea-09.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:09:56 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:09:54 +0100 From: Jaroslav Tulach Subject: Can ARC and NetBeans join forces? was: ARC Case Owner Change for LSARC 2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 In-reply-to: <47C86661.4060806@Sun.Com> Sender: Jaroslav.Tulach@sun.com To: John Plocher Cc: Petr Suchomel , Aarti Pai , Miloslav Metelka , Tom Childers , lsarc-members@sun.com Message-id: <200802292309.54347.jaroslav.tulach@sun.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A8E17E.5040800@Sun.COM> <47C85FD5.80804@sun.com> <47C86661.4060806@Sun.Com> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Status: RO Content-Length: 6503 I guess Petr wants me to say something when he added me on CC. I found this discussion quite interesting, so please see my comments bellow: Dne Friday 29 February 2008 21:09:05 John Plocher napsal(a): > Petr Suchomel wrote: > > Ho John, > > I understand. The issue is, this process has been developed in > > cooperation with wsarc? during last years and was used for every release > > review. > > I am pretty sure, this wouldn't be easy to change completely in any > > short term as far as this was result of many man hours over recent years. > > I'm not at all saying that this info is bad, but that it not the sort of > thing one needs at every ARC review. > > Good, you did this. Consider it a baseline. Your *next* arc case simply > has to presume that it exists, reference it from where you provided it to > the ARC 'back then', and ONLY produce a document that tells what you intend > to change based on what was said there. > > Note I'm *NOT* saying "produce a diff once you are done", as that defeats > the whole purpose of doing architecture-change review *before* you commit > to actually making those changes in your implementation... > > Very seriously, we are looking for you to take each and every bug report, > RFE and new feature addition individually and do the following: You have taken the words out of my mouth. This is exactly what I want our teams (NetBeans Platform, Core IDE, etc.) to do. And this is almost exactly what our teams do. I'll guide you through our review process: http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/reviews/ if you let me. > Ask yourself if this bug/rfe impacts the committed architecture > of your project. If your answer is "no", then congratulations, > you just completed the whole ARC Review for that bug/rfe! This is what we are telling our developers again and again. See our "why and what": http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/api.html#review > If the answer is "yes", then you need to talk with someone who > is "ARC aware" (might even be yourself...) and ask whether this > bug/rfe is a simple or complex architectural change. If "simple", > then your ARC sponsor files a fasttrack for you that includes > the content of the bug report or RFE proposal (with evaluation), > and you are done. Fastrack. We love fasttracks: http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/review-steps.html#fast and we do them a lot: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&issue_status=RESOLVED&issue_status=VERIFIED&issue_status=CLOSED&email1=&emailtype1=substring&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=substring&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&keywords=&keywords_type=exactlyanywords&field0-0-0=assigned_to&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=apireviews%40netbeans.org&field0-0-1=cc&type0-0-1=substring&value0-0-1=apireviews%40netbeans.org&field0-0-2=keywords&type0-0-2=casesubstring&value0-0-2=API_REVIEW&cmdtype=doit&namedcmd=3.2+bugs&newqueryname=&order=Issue+Number > The last choice is that you are doing something complicated. > This is the "full ARC review", and is made easy by the fact that > you are restricting it to a single new feature (or set of > related features) Standard in our terminology. See: http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/review-steps.html#standard we do them as well, but of course, not that often: http://www.netbeans.org/nonav/issues/buglist.cgi?Submit+query=Submit+query&issue_status=RESOLVED&issue_status=VERIFIED&issue_status=CLOSED&resolution=FIXED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&keywords=API_REVIEW&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop > At the end of a development cycle, you will find that you have reviewed > each and every change that went into the new version of your project, That is what we can guarantee for the NetBeans Platform and Core IDE, and maybe few other subsystems - e.g. the most important parts of the NetBeans IDE. Actually, result of that review is the list of "Changes from previous release" that you may find in any NetBeans Platform case since 2002. > and never once did you need to overwhelm yourselves or the ARC with > a huge functional spec or documentation-for-review effort. We are always overwhelmed by ARC asking us to do things differently. The biggest waste of time I can see is the need to convert the data we have into format requested at given month/year/ARC. I can justify time of our developers preparing technical content of their reviews, but I cannot justify them spend hours on pretty printing the documents. My bad experience with ARC is that usually the advices were about pretty printing the functional documentation and not about adding or changing anything real. However I can hear John telling us that times changed and you really want to participate in our reviews in day by day fashion. Watch us how we move forward, help us do the right decisions. That would be perfect. We need good reviewers, we need them every day, we need more of them. However I want as smooth cooperation as possible, I know what to expect from ARC, however I believe nobody on ARC really knows what kind of reviews before commit we are doing in NetBeans. I believe it would be very beneficial for us to know each other better. Would it be possible for one or even more of you to join our API changes review team? Observe for a while and help us find easiest way to comply with ARC while reusing the good from the processes that we already have? I would consider this to be the most beneficial way of cooperation. If you agree, then please follow the "How to get involved" instructions at: http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/reviews/ and get ready for additional ~300 mails per month. I am looking forward to learn how to improve what we do. Jaroslav Tulach NetBeans Founder, original NetBeans IDE architect, currently NetBeans Platform architect, co-designer of NetBeans API Review Process From sacadmin Fri Feb 29 14:40:27 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1TMeQb1003713 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m1TMeDmS029297 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-members@sun.com>; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 06:40:25 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JX000J03UZDCF00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JX000DY8UZC5F80@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m1TMeO7b008325 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JX000501RYWT400@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from John.Plocher@Sun.COM) for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from wp668.local ([208.74.177.212]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JX0006QQUZB8370@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:23 -0800 From: John Plocher Subject: Re: Can ARC and NetBeans join forces? was: ARC Case Owner Change for LSARC 2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 In-reply-to: <200802292309.54347.jaroslav.tulach@sun.com> Sender: John.Plocher@sun.com To: Jaroslav Tulach Cc: Petr Suchomel , Aarti Pai , Miloslav Metelka , Tom Childers , lsarc-members@sun.com Message-id: <47C889D7.5070708@Sun.Com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A8E17E.5040800@Sun.COM> <47C85FD5.80804@sun.com> <47C86661.4060806@Sun.Com> <200802292309.54347.jaroslav.tulach@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 742 Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > You have taken the words out of my mouth. This is exactly what I want our > teams (NetBeans Platform, Core IDE, etc.) to do. And this is almost exactly > what our teams do. I'll guide you through our review process: > http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/reviews/ I think it would be a good thing to figure out if/how the ARC can delegate this type of review to you and/or how the ARC could leverage the things you have done to make its own review process work better. It will take /me a bit to digest the current state of the NB community, but others may wish to chime in... IMO, if you have docs that you already use, just use them for the ARC; don't spend any time rewhacking them just for us... -John From sacadmin Sun Mar 2 13:36:19 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m22LaIwo007103 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m22LaHhk012070 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-members@sun.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:36:17 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JX400503HCFU000@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:36:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JX400KIUHCESQ40@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:36:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe3.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.12]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m22LaEcO027290 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:36:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JX400701H6T8A00@fe-emea-10.sun.com> (original mail from Jaroslav.Tulach@Sun.COM) for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:36:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([81.201.62.179]) by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JX400FBNHCDINF0@fe-emea-10.sun.com> for lsarc-members@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-members@sun.com); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:36:13 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:36:11 +0100 From: Jaroslav Tulach Subject: Re: Can ARC and NetBeans join forces? was: ARC Case Owner Change for LSARC 2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 In-reply-to: <47C889D7.5070708@Sun.Com> Sender: Jaroslav.Tulach@sun.com To: John Plocher Cc: Petr Suchomel , Aarti Pai , Miloslav Metelka , Tom Childers , lsarc-members@sun.com Message-id: <200803022236.11959.jaroslav.tulach@sun.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 References: <47A8E17E.5040800@Sun.COM> <200802292309.54347.jaroslav.tulach@sun.com> <47C889D7.5070708@Sun.Com> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Status: RO Content-Length: 1290 Dne Friday 29 February 2008 23:40:23 John Plocher napsal(a): > Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > > You have taken the words out of my mouth. This is exactly what I want our > > teams (NetBeans Platform, Core IDE, etc.) to do. And this is almost > > exactly what our teams do. I'll guide you through our review process: > > http://openide.netbeans.org/tutorial/reviews/ > > I think it would be a good thing to figure out if/how the ARC can delegate > this type of review to you and/or how the ARC could leverage the things you > have done to make its own review process work better. A sample is more valuable then thousands of theories. What would you suggest in case of #128695 fasttrack? See http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=128695 > others may wish to chime in... Of course, whoever has idea of what to do, say your opinion. If you are not able to modify the issue http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=128695 just sent your comments to me, I'll put them in. If you have questions to clarify, let us know me, Petr and Mila will try to help you. -jst > IMO, if you have docs that you already use, just use them for the ARC; > don't spend any time rewhacking them just for us... PS: Thanks, I'll find this quote whenever I get request for formatting changes ;-) From sacadmin Fri Mar 7 11:05:14 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m27J5EgC012010 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m27J5BUI063055 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:05:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JXD00G15JOPUF00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:05:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JXD000ANJOPJPC0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:05:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m27J5Dst023598 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:05:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JXD00D01J5G6200@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:05:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.150.34.91] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JXD002Z5JOOP4B0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:05:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:05:12 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: Commitment Materials for LSARC/2007/370 NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com Cc: Petr Suchomel Message-id: <47D191E8.1040706@Sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.13pre (Windows/20080229) Status: RO Content-Length: 434 sac% sac% pwd /shared/sac/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2007/370 sac% ls -l commitment.materials total 611 -r--r--r-- 1 apai sac 167405 Feb 25 17:00 FuncSpec.html dr-xr-xr-x 2 apai sac 2 Feb 25 16:41 answers dr-xr-xr-x 69 apai sac 148 Feb 25 16:59 javadoc -r--r--r-- 1 apai sac 16387 Nov 12 17:16 layout.txt -r--r--r-- 1 apai sac 19963 Feb 25 16:41 netbeans.css sac% From owner-sac-advocates Thu Mar 13 14:22:31 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2DLMV5D015880 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2DLLwNi039094; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:21:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JXO00A03U0M5M00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JXO008N5U0L7Z30@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (new-sac.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.175.65]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2DLLvcC011519; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2DLEIKT015409 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2DLEHvP012169 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:14:17 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JXO0090HTNSVK00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JXO008IOTNS7Y10@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2DLEGx6009636 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:14:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JXO00301SB5UG00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:14:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.150.34.31] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JXO00A3BTNOX5B0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:14:13 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:14:08 -0800 From: Aarti Pai Subject: LSARC Agenda - 03/18/2008 - [2007/370], [2007/353], [2008/052] Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc-agenda-announce@sun.com Cc: Petr Suchomel , Miloslav Metelka , Petr Jiricka Message-id: <47D99920.4050903@Sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_I9zXDZQlJ/A+e7si0nLlNA)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.13pre (Windows/20080229) Status: RO Content-Length: 6357 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_I9zXDZQlJ/A+e7si0nLlNA) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ NOTE: We WILL NOT be bridging the internal and external numbers - you *must* call in on the proper number, and you *will* need to hang up and dial in on the other number when we switch between the open and closed sections. Please see agenda below for details. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ============================================================================ Layered Software Architecture Review Committee LSARC ============================================================================ LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific) Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507 Video: Realtime: http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend (unless otherwise noted). TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS: OPEN LSARC MEETINGS: Open Dial in - (866)545-5223 (Within US) - (865)673-9887 (International Access) - x44409 (direct dial inside Sun) Participant Code: 939 5 586# LSARC meetings may be recorded. ========================================================================= ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE: 03/18/2008 10:00-10:10 Open ARC Business (use open dial in above) 10:10-11:10 Open Commitment: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370 ) Submitter: miloslav.metelka@sun.com Owner: Tom Childers Intern: Rahul Shah Exposure: open 11:15-11:25 Closed ARC Business (use closed dial in above) 11:25-12:25 Closed Commitment: NetBeans 6.0 Java EE features (WSARC/2007/353 ) Submitter: petr.jiricka@sun.com Owner: Lloyd Chambers Exposure: closed 12:25-1:00 Closed Inception: NetBeans 6.0 Ruby features (2008/052 ) Submitter: petr.jiricka@sun.com Owner: Terrence Miller Exposure: closed --Boundary_(ID_I9zXDZQlJ/A+e7si0nLlNA) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT   
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
NOTE: We WILL NOT be bridging the internal and external numbers
- you *must* call in on the proper number, and you *will* need to hang
up and dial in on the other number when we switch between the open and
closed sections. Please see agenda below for details.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

============================================================================
	    Layered Software Architecture Review Committee

			    LSARC
============================================================================
	LSARC meets weekly on Tuesdays, 10am-1pm (Pacific)

        Where: MPK 17 Presidio Conference room, 3rd floor, room 3507
	Video: Realtime:      http://mpk17-presidio-camera.eng
	       Low Bandwidth: http://sac.eng/HTML/camera/index.html
	       
	All LSARC meetings are open: anyone from Engineering may attend
	(unless otherwise noted).     
	       
	TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS:   
	
	OPEN LSARC MEETINGS:

	Open Dial in - (866)545-5223 (Within US)
		         - (865)673-9887 (International Access)
			 - x44409 (direct dial inside Sun)
	    Participant Code: 939 5 586#

LSARC meetings may be recorded.
		
=========================================================================
ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SCHEDULE:

03/18/2008
  10:00-10:10   Open ARC Business (use open dial in above)
  10:10-11:10   Open Commitment: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370)
                Submitter:  miloslav.metelka@sun.com
                Owner: Tom Childers
                Intern: Rahul Shah
                Exposure: open
  11:15-11:25   Closed ARC Business (use closed dial in above)
  11:25-12:25   Closed Commitment: NetBeans 6.0 Java EE features
					(WSARC/2007/353)
		Submitter: petr.jiricka@sun.com
		Owner: Lloyd Chambers
		Exposure: closed
  12:25-1:00	Closed Inception:
                        NetBeans 6.0 Ruby features (2008/052)
                Submitter: petr.jiricka@sun.com
                Owner: Terrence Miller
		Exposure: closed
 --Boundary_(ID_I9zXDZQlJ/A+e7si0nLlNA)-- From sacadmin Wed Mar 19 12:02:40 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2JJ2eXY026988 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2JJ2cKl016626 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JXZ00125RKFHD00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:02:39 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JXZ00MYDRKEJE10@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:02:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2JJ2cVI022983 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:02:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JXZ00001R42P800@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:02:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.145.154.93] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JXZ0000CRK00Q50@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:02:25 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:02:24 -0700 From: Aarti Pai Subject: Meeting Minutes for LSARC 03/19/2008 [2007/370], [2007/353], [2008/052] Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com Cc: Miloslav Metelka , Petr Suchomel , Petr Jiricka Reply-to: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Message-id: <47E16340.4090609@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_9vOpwfFsqGsel39mRFXInw)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) Status: RO Content-Length: 4211 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_9vOpwfFsqGsel39mRFXInw) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT *Minutes/Audio for LSARC 03/19/2008 are now available: * - *Open Arc Business:* http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.arcbiz.open Audio: Open Fast-tracks http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.arcbiz.open.mp3 Audio: NetBeans Discussion http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.arcbiz.open2.mp3 - *Open Commitment: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370) * http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.370.commitment Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.370.commitment.mp3 - *Open Commitment: NetBeans 6.0 Java EE features (WSARC/2007/353)* http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.353.commitment Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.353.commitment.mp3 - *Open Fast-track Discussion: NetBeans 6.0 Ruby features (2008/052) * http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2008.052.fasttrack Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2008.052.fasttrack.mp3 Please contact me directly if you require any corrections/modifications to these minutes. Aarti --Boundary_(ID_9vOpwfFsqGsel39mRFXInw) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Minutes/Audio for LSARC 03/19/2008  are now available:

- Open Arc Business:  http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.arcbiz.open
    Audio: Open Fast-tracks  http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.arcbiz.open.mp3
    Audio: NetBeans Discussion http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.arcbiz.open2.mp3

- Open Commitment: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370)    
    http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.370.commitment
    Audio:  http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.370.commitment.mp3

- Open Commitment: NetBeans 6.0 Java EE features (WSARC/2007/353)
    http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.353.commitment
    Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2007.353.commitment.mp3

- Open Fast-track Discussion: NetBeans 6.0 Ruby features (2008/052)
    http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2008.052.fasttrack
    Audio: http://sac.sfbay/Archives/Minutes/LSARC/2008/20080318.2008.052.fasttrack.mp3

Please contact me directly if you require any corrections/modifications
to these minutes.

Aarti

--Boundary_(ID_9vOpwfFsqGsel39mRFXInw)-- From sac-owner Wed Mar 19 12:42:36 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2JJgZL9027906 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2JJgXwB012421 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:All-ARCs@sun.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:42:35 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JXZ0020HTEWP000@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for All-ARCs@sun.com (ORCPT All-ARCs@Sun.COM); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JXZ001X8TEV5870@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for All-ARCs@sun.com (ORCPT All-ARCs@Sun.COM); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2JJgVmZ004493 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:42:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JXZ00501SOB4100@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Aarti.Pai@Sun.COM) for All-ARCs@Sun.COM (ORCPT All-ARCs@Sun.COM); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:42:31 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.145.154.93] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JXZ009PKTEQ4O90@mail-amer.sun.com> for All-ARCs@Sun.COM (ORCPT All-ARCs@Sun.COM); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:42:26 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:42:25 -0700 From: Aarti Pai Subject: LSARC approved 03/18/2008 - (2007/370) Sender: Aarti.Pai@sun.com To: Aarti Pai Reply-to: Aarti.Pai@sun.com Message-id: <47E16CA1.3070305@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_uzHsxFA3rj4bCED2iB8fVg)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) Status: RO Content-Length: 1070 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_uzHsxFA3rj4bCED2iB8fVg) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT LSARC approved 03/18/2008 Case: NetBeans Core IDE 6.0* *(2007/370) Incompatible Changes: none Precedent: none If more information is needed, please contact the case owner/intern. Aarti --Boundary_(ID_uzHsxFA3rj4bCED2iB8fVg) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT LSARC approved 03/18/2008
        Case:    NetBeans Core IDE 6.0 (2007/370)
        Incompatible Changes: none
        Precedent: none

If more information is needed, please contact the case owner/intern.


Aarti --Boundary_(ID_uzHsxFA3rj4bCED2iB8fVg)-- From sacadmin Mon Mar 24 12:13:26 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2OJDP8R009695 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2OJDMjQ002995 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:13:24 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JY900M4J1EB1300@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JY900BDJ1CJKXE0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2OJCJ11028169 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:12:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JY900M010MVN800@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:12:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.18.126.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JY900AUW1CCX5E0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:12:12 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:15:00 -0700 From: Rahul Shah Subject: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 Sender: Rahul.Shah@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com Cc: Petr Suchomel , Miloslav.Metelka@sun.com Message-id: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 153 Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The opinion can be viewed at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html Thanks, Rahul From sacadmin Mon Mar 24 14:59:09 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2OLx8fG016245 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2OLx2fe007739 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:59:07 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JY900I0592GS200@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:59:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JY900ML892DN3E0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:59:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2OLx1ip013330 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JY9008018R4FI00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([24.23.53.188]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JY9003D592CUI40@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:58:50 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Rahul Shah Cc: lsarc@sun.com, Petr Suchomel , Miloslav.Metelka@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Status: RO Content-Length: 2304 Rahul, Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or abstain. It should not include those who are non-participating. It should also include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will look like: Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John Fischer. Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists with the word "Minority: .". Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the opinion should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of that section as it is an introductory sentence. Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. There is some controversy over what should be in the interface table section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level interface table present with references to the detailed interface table in another document. For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion subsection (4). Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a paragraph of further details that way if someone wants to better understand our reasoning they can consult these sections. Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. I look forward to reading the updated opinion. Thanks, John Rahul Shah wrote: > Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The opinion > can be viewed at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > > Thanks, > Rahul From sacadmin Mon Mar 24 15:06:28 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2OM6RA4016515 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2OM6JQR011048 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:06:26 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JY900H0H9EPKG00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JY9007DY9EOYGE0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2OM6OY6014135 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JY900K0196O1E00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.2] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JY9003D89ENUI80@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:03:55 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: John Fischer , Rahul Shah Cc: lsarc@sun.com Message-id: <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 2862 My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are giving feedback on. I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion template I have. The committee line is just the committee line. And I've always just alphabetized the committee, without calling out the case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). -tdc On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: > Rahul, > > Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to > attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those > of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. > > Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. > > The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or abstain. > It should not include those who are non-participating. It should also > include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner > with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will > look like: > > Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), > Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John > Fischer. > > Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after > the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list > would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists with > the word "Minority: .". > > Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members > with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the opinion > should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of that > section as it is an introductory sentence. > > Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and > not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one > of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. > > There is some controversy over what should be in the interface table > section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level > interface table present with references to the detailed interface > table in another document. > > For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR sections > (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion subsection (4). > Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion > section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a paragraph > of further details that way if someone wants to better understand our > reasoning they can consult these sections. > > Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents > found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. > > I look forward to reading the updated opinion. > > Thanks, > > John > > Rahul Shah wrote: >> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The >> opinion can be viewed at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/ >> opinion.html >> Thanks, >> Rahul From sacadmin Mon Mar 24 15:20:59 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2OMKwhZ017959 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2OMKkuC016466 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:20:57 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JY900I09A2UAR00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JY900M55A2UVO90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2OMKsgh011665 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JY9000019X5ZO00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([24.23.53.188]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JY900LE3A2IC220@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:32 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@Sun.COM To: Tom Childers Cc: Rahul Shah , lsarc@Sun.COM Reply-to: John.Fischer@Sun.COM Message-id: <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Status: RO Content-Length: 3408 Tom, It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is writing and submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is easy to understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses is so that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and yourself as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any political issues out of the opinion. So no problem(s). Thanks, John Tom Childers wrote: > My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are giving > feedback on. > > I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion submitter, > which is a separate line item in the opinion template I have. The > committee line is just the committee line. And I've always just > alphabetized the committee, without calling out the case owner (who > appears elsewhere in the materials). > -tdc > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >> Rahul, >> >> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >> >> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >> >> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or abstain. >> It should not include those who are non-participating. It should also >> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner >> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will >> look like: >> >> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >> Fischer. >> >> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after >> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list >> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists with >> the word "Minority: .". >> >> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the opinion >> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of that >> section as it is an introductory sentence. >> >> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and >> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one >> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >> >> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface table >> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level >> interface table present with references to the detailed interface >> table in another document. >> >> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR sections >> (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion subsection (4). >> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a paragraph >> of further details that way if someone wants to better understand our >> reasoning they can consult these sections. >> >> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >> >> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> Rahul Shah wrote: >>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The >>> opinion can be viewed at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>> Thanks, >>> Rahul > From sacadmin Tue Mar 25 11:52:02 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2PIq1p5021637 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2PIpxEW014427 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:52:00 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYA00A1HV2K2W00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYA008FQV2I0U20@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2PIpsXE002372 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:51:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYA00801UJLU100@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:51:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.18.126.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYA00LMLV2725B0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:51:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:54:32 -0700 From: Rahul Shah Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> Sender: Rahul.Shah@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: Tom Childers , lsarc@sun.com Message-id: <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 3982 In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different category and put just the category in the opinion? Thanks, Rahul John Fischer wrote: > Tom, > > It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is writing and > submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is easy to > understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses is so > that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and yourself > as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any > political issues out of the opinion. > > So no problem(s). > > Thanks, > > John > > Tom Childers wrote: >> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are >> giving feedback on. >> >> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion submitter, >> which is a separate line item in the opinion template I have. The >> committee line is just the committee line. And I've always just >> alphabetized the committee, without calling out the case owner (who >> appears elsewhere in the materials). >> -tdc >> >> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>> Rahul, >>> >>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>> >>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >>> >>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or abstain. >>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It should also >>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner >>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will >>> look like: >>> >>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>> Fischer. >>> >>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after >>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list >>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists with >>> the word "Minority: .". >>> >>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the opinion >>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of that >>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>> >>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and >>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one >>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>> >>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface table >>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level >>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface >>> table in another document. >>> >>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR sections >>> (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion subsection (4). >>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a paragraph >>> of further details that way if someone wants to better understand our >>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>> >>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>> >>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The >>>> opinion can be viewed at >>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rahul >> From sacadmin Tue Mar 25 14:07:29 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2PL7Spo027533 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2PL7Ixt019254 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:07:27 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYB005071CDRE00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYB001PO1CD1CB0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2PL7PvQ011048 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYB007010VX3A00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([24.23.53.188]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYB00CM01CC4L30@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:07:12 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Rahul Shah Cc: Tom Childers , lsarc@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Status: RO Content-Length: 6226 Rahul, We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The project team does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds like this is a Micro release. If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the materials. For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the materials will talk at the function level interfaces that changed. If you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to include the interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not provide an interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not really done a thorough review of the project. In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional Specification that states: Changes From the Previous Release It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in the Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project team. The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see the following API changes at a high level: Lexer API Editor API Ant API DB API Refactoring API Palette API Debugger API SPI View Model ProjectUI API DIFF API SPI Navigator API I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a fairly short list. Also unless the installation location changed from the previous release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the interface table. If there are installation location changes then I would simply make a high level directory list like $INSTALL/ide/config, $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, $INSTALL/apisupport, $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and read the details in the functional specification. Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead of a Micro release. Thanks, John Rahul Shah wrote: > In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) but > the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what should > the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? > I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The > interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So are > you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different category and > put just the category in the opinion? > > Thanks, > Rahul > > John Fischer wrote: >> Tom, >> >> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is writing and >> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is easy to >> understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses is so >> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and yourself >> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any >> political issues out of the opinion. >> >> So no problem(s). >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> Tom Childers wrote: >>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are >>> giving feedback on. >>> >>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion submitter, >>> which is a separate line item in the opinion template I have. The >>> committee line is just the committee line. And I've always just >>> alphabetized the committee, without calling out the case owner (who >>> appears elsewhere in the materials). >>> -tdc >>> >>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>> Rahul, >>>> >>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>>> >>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >>>> >>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or abstain. >>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It should also >>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner >>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will >>>> look like: >>>> >>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>> Fischer. >>>> >>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after >>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list >>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists with >>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>> >>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the opinion >>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of that >>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>> >>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and >>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one >>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>> >>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface table >>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level >>>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface >>>> table in another document. >>>> >>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR sections >>>> (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion subsection (4). >>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a paragraph >>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better understand our >>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>> >>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>> >>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The >>>>> opinion can be viewed at >>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Rahul >>> > From sacadmin Tue Mar 25 15:24:18 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2PMOH4c000826 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2PMOFYm022430 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:24:16 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYB007074WDR000@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYB001NT4WC9540@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2PMOCoI027760 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYB00H014G0BE00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.2] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYB00HH14W03840@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:21:34 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: Rahul Shah Cc: lsarc@sun.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 8446 Rahul, John, et al This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get challenging :-) There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior release) and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll have to explain ourselves, however. I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, add the above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 because of the tardiness of the case materials. I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, and we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, keeping the content focused and useful for target audience members like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce the level of detail the next time they come back for review. The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a delta from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating deltas; they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this functional spec. SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the opinion regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in section 4 covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay the same. Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, -tdc On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: > Rahul, > > We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The project > team > does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds like > this is a Micro release. > > If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables > that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the materials. > For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the > materials will talk at the function level interfaces that changed. If > you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to include > the > interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not > provide an > interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not > really > done a thorough review of the project. > > In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional > Specification > that states: > > Changes From the Previous Release > > It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in the > Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project team. > The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project > in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see > the following API changes at a high level: > > Lexer API > Editor API > Ant API > DB API > Refactoring API > Palette API > Debugger API > SPI View Model > ProjectUI API > DIFF API > SPI Navigator API > > I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a fairly > short > list. Also unless the installation location changed from the previous > release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the > interface table. If there are installation location changes then I > would simply make a high level directory list like $INSTALL/ide/ > config, > $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, > $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, $INSTALL/ > apisupport, > $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and > read the details in the functional specification. > > Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual > differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead > of a Micro release. > > Thanks, > > John > > > Rahul Shah wrote: >> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) >> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what >> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? >> I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The >> interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So >> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different >> category and put just the category in the opinion? >> Thanks, >> Rahul >> John Fischer wrote: >>> Tom, >>> >>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is >>> writing and >>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is >>> easy to >>> understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses >>> is so >>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and >>> yourself >>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any >>> political issues out of the opinion. >>> >>> So no problem(s). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are >>>> giving feedback on. >>>> >>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion >>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion template >>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. And I've >>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling out the >>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). >>>> -tdc >>>> >>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>> Rahul, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>>>> >>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >>>>> >>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or >>>>> abstain. >>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It >>>>> should also >>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner >>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will >>>>> look like: >>>>> >>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>>> Fischer. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after >>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list >>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists >>>>> with >>>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>>> >>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the >>>>> opinion >>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of >>>>> that >>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>>> >>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and >>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one >>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>>> >>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface >>>>> table >>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level >>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface >>>>> table in another document. >>>>> >>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR >>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion >>>>> subsection (4). >>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a >>>>> paragraph >>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better >>>>> understand our >>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>>> >>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. >>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/ >>>>>> opinion.html >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Rahul >>>> From sacadmin Tue Mar 25 15:40:29 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2PMeSUH001241 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2PMeP8w028894 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:40:27 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYB009015NDUK00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYB001Q35NC9050@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2PMeONB029565 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYB00B01549HJ00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([24.23.53.188]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYB00H3O5N138B0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:40:01 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Tom Childers Cc: Rahul Shah , lsarc@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Status: RO Content-Length: 9382 Tom, What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have made a change has the change been documented and published yet? If not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include the interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we as a committee can not simply change it because there have been discussions. If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have committee reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to understand which interfaces are exported. Thanks, John Tom Childers wrote: > Rahul, John, et al > > This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get > challenging :-) > > There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior release) and > 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials weren't > delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the project team to > make this a 6.0.1 review. > > So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project team, > and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll have to explain > ourselves, however. > > I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a reference > to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, add the above > explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC review of the > NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 because of the > tardiness of the case materials. > > I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, and we've > been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in both the case > materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) prone to errors. I > generally omit the interfaces from opinions, keeping the content focused > and useful for target audience members like the PAC. I agree that the > details in the functional spec are too low-level, but we've already > asked the project team to reduce the level of detail the next time they > come back for review. > > The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a delta from > the prior case. NB has been really good at generating deltas; they in > fact have many more interfaces than we see in this functional spec. > > SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the opinion > regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in section 4 > covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay the same. > > Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, > -tdc > > > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: >> Rahul, >> >> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The project team >> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds like >> this is a Micro release. >> >> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables >> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the materials. >> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the >> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that changed. If >> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to include the >> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not provide an >> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not really >> done a thorough review of the project. >> >> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional Specification >> that states: >> >> Changes From the Previous Release >> >> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in the >> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project team. >> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project >> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see >> the following API changes at a high level: >> >> Lexer API >> Editor API >> Ant API >> DB API >> Refactoring API >> Palette API >> Debugger API >> SPI View Model >> ProjectUI API >> DIFF API >> SPI Navigator API >> >> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a fairly short >> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the previous >> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the >> interface table. If there are installation location changes then I >> would simply make a high level directory list like $INSTALL/ide/config, >> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, >> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, $INSTALL/apisupport, >> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and >> read the details in the functional specification. >> >> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual >> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead >> of a Micro release. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> Rahul Shah wrote: >>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) >>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what >>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? >>> I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The >>> interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So are >>> you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different category and >>> put just the category in the opinion? >>> Thanks, >>> Rahul >>> John Fischer wrote: >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is writing >>>> and >>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is easy to >>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses is so >>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and >>>> yourself >>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any >>>> political issues out of the opinion. >>>> >>>> So no problem(s). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are >>>>> giving feedback on. >>>>> >>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion >>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion template I >>>>> have. The committee line is just the committee line. And I've >>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling out the >>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). >>>>> -tdc >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or abstain. >>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It should >>>>>> also >>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner >>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will >>>>>> look like: >>>>>> >>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>>>> Fischer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after >>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list >>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists with >>>>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>>>> >>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the opinion >>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of that >>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and >>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one >>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface table >>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level >>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface >>>>>> table in another document. >>>>>> >>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR sections >>>>>> (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion subsection >>>>>> (4). >>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a paragraph >>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better understand our >>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. The >>>>>>> opinion can be viewed at >>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Rahul >>>>> > From sacadmin Tue Mar 25 17:01:56 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2Q01tsA005131 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2Q01hbO001403 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:01:46 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYB00I0H9EV6E00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYB001M29EV8WA0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2Q01h9G029988 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYB00E019A18300@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.2] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYB00LKK9EUGGF0@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:59:16 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: Rahul Shah , lsarc@sun.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 10816 John, I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we operated in WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to find interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have opinions :-) SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of putting ARC materials into web forms and databases, moving away from formatted text documents. If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the opinion, then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier for ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We rely on html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems tortuous. -tdc On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: > Tom, > > What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have > made a change has the change been documented and published yet? If > not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include the > interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to > the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from > the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we > as a committee can not simply change it because there have been > discussions. > > If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in > opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have committee > reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the > PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to > understand which interfaces are exported. > > Thanks, > > John > > > Tom Childers wrote: >> Rahul, John, et al >> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get >> challenging :-) >> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior >> release) and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but >> materials weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we >> asked the project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. >> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project >> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll have to >> explain ourselves, however. >> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a >> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, add >> the above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first >> ARC review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed >> 6.0.1 because of the tardiness of the case materials. >> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, and >> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in >> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) >> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, >> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience members >> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are >> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce >> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. >> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a >> delta from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating >> deltas; they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this >> functional spec. >> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the opinion >> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in section >> 4 covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to >> stay the same. >> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, >> -tdc >> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>> Rahul, >>> >>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The >>> project team >>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds >>> like >>> this is a Micro release. >>> >>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables >>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the >>> materials. >>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the >>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that >>> changed. If >>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to >>> include the >>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not >>> provide an >>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not >>> really >>> done a thorough review of the project. >>> >>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional >>> Specification >>> that states: >>> >>> Changes From the Previous Release >>> >>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in >>> the >>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project >>> team. >>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project >>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see >>> the following API changes at a high level: >>> >>> Lexer API >>> Editor API >>> Ant API >>> DB API >>> Refactoring API >>> Palette API >>> Debugger API >>> SPI View Model >>> ProjectUI API >>> DIFF API >>> SPI Navigator API >>> >>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a >>> fairly short >>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the >>> previous >>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the >>> interface table. If there are installation location changes then I >>> would simply make a high level directory list like $INSTALL/ide/ >>> config, >>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, >>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, $INSTALL/ >>> apisupport, >>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and >>> read the details in the functional specification. >>> >>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual >>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead >>> of a Micro release. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release >>>> (6.0) but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). >>>> So what should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? >>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface table. >>>> The interface table provided by the project team is very >>>> detailed. So are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into >>>> different category and put just the category in the opinion? >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rahul >>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is >>>>> writing and >>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is >>>>> easy to >>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in >>>>> parentheses is so >>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and >>>>> yourself >>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any >>>>> political issues out of the opinion. >>>>> >>>>> So no problem(s). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you >>>>>> are giving feedback on. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion >>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion >>>>>> template I have. The committee line is just the committee >>>>>> line. And I've always just alphabetized the committee, >>>>>> without calling out the case owner (who appears elsewhere in >>>>>> the materials). >>>>>> -tdc >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or >>>>>>> abstain. >>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It >>>>>>> should also >>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case >>>>>>> owner >>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> look like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>>>>> Fischer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that >>>>>>> list >>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain >>>>>>> lists with >>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the >>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection >>>>>>> of that >>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release >>>>>>> binding and >>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should >>>>>>> see one >>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the >>>>>>> interface table >>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high >>>>>>> level >>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed >>>>>>> interface >>>>>>> table in another document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR >>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding >>>>>>> opinion subsection (4). >>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a >>>>>>> paragraph >>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better >>>>>>> understand our >>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. >>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/ >>>>>>>> 2007/370/opinion.html >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>> From sacadmin Thu Mar 27 18:00:38 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2S10b1d006565 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2S10QE8011825 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:00:36 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYF006031GYGO00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:00:34 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYF006EG1GX4200@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:00:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2S10XJR003692 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:00:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYF00K01197GP00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:00:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.18.126.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYF00EER1GXX4B0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:00:33 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:03:24 -0700 From: Rahul Shah Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: Sender: Rahul.Shah@sun.com To: Tom Childers Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, lsarc@sun.com Message-id: <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_AYZ23s51/9tbwDaDV3rtEg)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 14424 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_AYZ23s51/9tbwDaDV3rtEg) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The opinion is updated with the comments received so far. The text version of the opinion is attached. Html version can be found at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html Thanks, Rahul Tom Childers wrote: > John, > > I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. > Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we operated in > WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to find > interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have opinions > :-) > > SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed > simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of putting ARC > materials into web forms and databases, moving away from formatted > text documents. > > If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the opinion, > then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier for > ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt > material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We rely on > html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems tortuous. > -tdc > > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: >> Tom, >> >> What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have >> made a change has the change been documented and published yet? If >> not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include the >> interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to >> the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from >> the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we >> as a committee can not simply change it because there have been >> discussions. >> >> If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in >> opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have committee >> reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the >> PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to >> understand which interfaces are exported. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> Tom Childers wrote: >>> Rahul, John, et al >>> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get >>> challenging :-) >>> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior release) >>> and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials >>> weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the >>> project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. >>> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project >>> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll have to >>> explain ourselves, however. >>> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a >>> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, add the >>> above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC >>> review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 >>> because of the tardiness of the case materials. >>> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, and >>> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in >>> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) >>> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, >>> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience members >>> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are >>> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce >>> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. >>> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a delta >>> from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating deltas; >>> they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this >>> functional spec. >>> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the opinion >>> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in section 4 >>> covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay >>> the same. >>> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, >>> -tdc >>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>> Rahul, >>>> >>>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The project >>>> team >>>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds like >>>> this is a Micro release. >>>> >>>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables >>>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the materials. >>>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the >>>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that changed. If >>>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to include >>>> the >>>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not >>>> provide an >>>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not >>>> really >>>> done a thorough review of the project. >>>> >>>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional >>>> Specification >>>> that states: >>>> >>>> Changes From the Previous Release >>>> >>>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in the >>>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project team. >>>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project >>>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see >>>> the following API changes at a high level: >>>> >>>> Lexer API >>>> Editor API >>>> Ant API >>>> DB API >>>> Refactoring API >>>> Palette API >>>> Debugger API >>>> SPI View Model >>>> ProjectUI API >>>> DIFF API >>>> SPI Navigator API >>>> >>>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a fairly >>>> short >>>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the previous >>>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the >>>> interface table. If there are installation location changes then I >>>> would simply make a high level directory list like >>>> $INSTALL/ide/config, >>>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, >>>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, >>>> $INSTALL/apisupport, >>>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and >>>> read the details in the functional specification. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual >>>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead >>>> of a Micro release. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) >>>>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what >>>>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? >>>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The >>>>> interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So >>>>> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different >>>>> category and put just the category in the opinion? >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Rahul >>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> Tom, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is >>>>>> writing and >>>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is >>>>>> easy to >>>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses >>>>>> is so >>>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and >>>>>> yourself >>>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any >>>>>> political issues out of the opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> So no problem(s). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are >>>>>>> giving feedback on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion >>>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion template >>>>>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. And I've >>>>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling out the >>>>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). >>>>>>> -tdc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those >>>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or >>>>>>>> abstain. >>>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It >>>>>>>> should also >>>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner >>>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will >>>>>>>> look like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), >>>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>>>>>> Fischer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after >>>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list >>>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members >>>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the >>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and >>>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one >>>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface >>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level >>>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface >>>>>>>> table in another document. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR >>>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion >>>>>>>> subsection (4). >>>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion >>>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a >>>>>>>> paragraph >>>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better >>>>>>>> understand our >>>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents >>>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. >>>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at >>>>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>>> > --Boundary_(ID_AYZ23s51/9tbwDaDV3rtEg) Content-type: text/plain; name=netbeans_opinion.txt Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline; filename=netbeans_opinion.txt sun microsystems Systems Architecture Committee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Netbeans 6.0.1 Core IDE Submitted by: Rahul Shah File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html Date: March 18, 2008 Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com 1. Summary NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support developing in java (J2SE platform) and possibly other languages. Prior cases for Netbeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/2006/275 . 2. Decision & Precedence Information The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. The project may be delivered in a major Netbeans Consolidation release. See section 4.3 for details. 3. Interfaces See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the commitment review materials for the current interaces tables. 4. Opinion This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and one member not participitaing in the vote. 4.1 Rely on Netbeans review process LSARC is relying on the netbeans open source development process to identify product architectural issues, and there was little discussion of the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. 4.2 Why full case The project team should consider submitting cases like these as fast-tracks. 4.3 Timely submission of materials The project was initially requested to be delivered as major release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. The project team should submit the materials well before the release. 5. Minority Opinion(s) None. 6. Advisory Information 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not necessary for reviews. 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only interfaces that have changed since the last case. 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped months before the commitment review. 7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required None. 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised None. 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case directory (LSARC/2007/370). Functional Specification File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html mail log File: ./mail --Boundary_(ID_AYZ23s51/9tbwDaDV3rtEg)-- From sacadmin Fri Mar 28 08:49:31 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SFnVpS028932 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2SFnTUw017057 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYG0040V6MH7F00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:49:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYG00MS66MGHE50@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:49:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2SFnSNx016894 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:49:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYG0050152FOV00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:49:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 129.145.154.70 ([129.145.154.70]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYG0021G6MCDVF0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:49:24 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:49:23 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Rahul Shah Cc: John Fischer , Tom Childers , lsarc@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <1206719363.61417.7.camel@sr1-umpk-19> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.301 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 15198 Rahul and Tom, Please add a subsection in the opinion that discusses the precedence set by this opinion for opinion writing. The precedence being set is the interface table. This will cause a final decision to be made about the necessity of having section 3 in the opinion at all. That subsection should reflect the email dialog had between us. Thanks, John On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 18:03, Rahul Shah wrote: > The opinion is updated with the comments received so far. The text > version of the opinion is attached. Html version can be found at > http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > > Thanks, > Rahul > > Tom Childers wrote: > > John, > > > > I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. > > Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we operated in > > WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to find > > interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have opinions > > :-) > > > > SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed > > simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of putting ARC > > materials into web forms and databases, moving away from formatted > > text documents. > > > > If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the opinion, > > then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier for > > ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt > > material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We rely on > > html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems tortuous. > > -tdc > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: > >> Tom, > >> > >> What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have > >> made a change has the change been documented and published yet? If > >> not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include the > >> interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to > >> the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from > >> the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we > >> as a committee can not simply change it because there have been > >> discussions. > >> > >> If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in > >> opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have committee > >> reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the > >> PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to > >> understand which interfaces are exported. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> Tom Childers wrote: > >>> Rahul, John, et al > >>> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get > >>> challenging :-) > >>> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior release) > >>> and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials > >>> weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the > >>> project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. > >>> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project > >>> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll have to > >>> explain ourselves, however. > >>> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a > >>> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, add the > >>> above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC > >>> review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 > >>> because of the tardiness of the case materials. > >>> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, and > >>> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in > >>> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) > >>> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, > >>> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience members > >>> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are > >>> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce > >>> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. > >>> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a delta > >>> from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating deltas; > >>> they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this > >>> functional spec. > >>> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the opinion > >>> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in section 4 > >>> covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay > >>> the same. > >>> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, > >>> -tdc > >>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: > >>>> Rahul, > >>>> > >>>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The project > >>>> team > >>>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds like > >>>> this is a Micro release. > >>>> > >>>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables > >>>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the materials. > >>>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the > >>>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that changed. If > >>>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to include > >>>> the > >>>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not > >>>> provide an > >>>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not > >>>> really > >>>> done a thorough review of the project. > >>>> > >>>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional > >>>> Specification > >>>> that states: > >>>> > >>>> Changes From the Previous Release > >>>> > >>>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in the > >>>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project team. > >>>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project > >>>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see > >>>> the following API changes at a high level: > >>>> > >>>> Lexer API > >>>> Editor API > >>>> Ant API > >>>> DB API > >>>> Refactoring API > >>>> Palette API > >>>> Debugger API > >>>> SPI View Model > >>>> ProjectUI API > >>>> DIFF API > >>>> SPI Navigator API > >>>> > >>>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a fairly > >>>> short > >>>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the previous > >>>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the > >>>> interface table. If there are installation location changes then I > >>>> would simply make a high level directory list like > >>>> $INSTALL/ide/config, > >>>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, > >>>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, > >>>> $INSTALL/apisupport, > >>>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and > >>>> read the details in the functional specification. > >>>> > >>>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual > >>>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead > >>>> of a Micro release. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Rahul Shah wrote: > >>>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) > >>>>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what > >>>>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? > >>>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The > >>>>> interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So > >>>>> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different > >>>>> category and put just the category in the opinion? > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Rahul > >>>>> John Fischer wrote: > >>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is > >>>>>> writing and > >>>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is > >>>>>> easy to > >>>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses > >>>>>> is so > >>>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and > >>>>>> yourself > >>>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any > >>>>>> political issues out of the opinion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So no problem(s). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> John > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: > >>>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are > >>>>>>> giving feedback on. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion > >>>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion template > >>>>>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. And I've > >>>>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling out the > >>>>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). > >>>>>>> -tdc > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rahul, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to > >>>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those > >>>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or > >>>>>>>> abstain. > >>>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It > >>>>>>>> should also > >>>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner > >>>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will > >>>>>>>> look like: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), > >>>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John > >>>>>>>> Fischer. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after > >>>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list > >>>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members > >>>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the > >>>>>>>> opinion > >>>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and > >>>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one > >>>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface > >>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level > >>>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface > >>>>>>>> table in another document. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR > >>>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion > >>>>>>>> subsection (4). > >>>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion > >>>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a > >>>>>>>> paragraph > >>>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better > >>>>>>>> understand our > >>>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents > >>>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. > >>>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at > >>>>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> Rahul > >>>>>>> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > sun > microsystems Systems Architecture Committee > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Netbeans 6.0.1 Core IDE > Submitted by: Rahul Shah > File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > Date: March 18, 2008 > Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer > Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com > > > 1. Summary > > NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support developing in java (J2SE platform) and possibly other languages. Prior cases for Netbeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/2006/275 . > > 2. Decision & Precedence Information > > The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. > > The project may be delivered in a major Netbeans Consolidation release. See section 4.3 for details. > > > 3. Interfaces > > See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the commitment review materials for the current interaces tables. > > 4. Opinion > > > This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and one member not participitaing in the vote. > > 4.1 Rely on Netbeans review process > > LSARC is relying on the netbeans open source development process to identify product architectural issues, and there was little discussion of the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. > > 4.2 Why full case > > The project team should consider submitting cases like these as fast-tracks. > > 4.3 Timely submission of materials > > The project was initially requested to be delivered as major release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. The project team should submit the materials well before the release. > > 5. Minority Opinion(s) > > None. > > 6. Advisory Information > > > 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not necessary for reviews. > > 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only interfaces that have changed since the last case. > > 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped months before the commitment review. > > 7. Appendices > > 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required > > None. > > 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised > > None. > > 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material > > Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case directory (LSARC/2007/370). > > Functional Specification > File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html > mail log > File: ./mail > From sacadmin Fri Mar 28 08:53:13 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SFrD60028965 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2SFrDJr018600 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYG004016SPG000@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:53:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYG00MIE6SMH650@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:53:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2SFrA7k002084 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:53:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYG00L016Q6IK00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:53:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 129.145.154.70 ([129.145.154.70]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYG00A6W6SKA7B0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:53:09 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:08 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re2: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <1206719363.61417.7.camel@sr1-umpk-19> Sender: John.Fischer@Sun.COM To: Rahul Shah Cc: John Fischer , Tom Childers , lsarc@Sun.COM Reply-to: John.Fischer@Sun.COM Message-id: <1206719588.61417.9.camel@sr1-umpk-19> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.301 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <1206719363.61417.7.camel@sr1-umpk-19> Status: RO Content-Length: 16064 Rahul and Tom, The precedence needs to be called out in section 2 as well. Thanks, John On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:49, John Fischer wrote: > Rahul and Tom, > > Please add a subsection in the opinion that discusses > the precedence set by this opinion for opinion writing. > The precedence being set is the interface table. This > will cause a final decision to be made about the necessity > of having section 3 in the opinion at all. That subsection > should reflect the email dialog had between us. > > Thanks, > > John > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 18:03, Rahul Shah wrote: > > The opinion is updated with the comments received so far. The text > > version of the opinion is attached. Html version can be found at > > http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > > > > Thanks, > > Rahul > > > > Tom Childers wrote: > > > John, > > > > > > I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. > > > Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we operated in > > > WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to find > > > interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have opinions > > > :-) > > > > > > SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed > > > simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of putting ARC > > > materials into web forms and databases, moving away from formatted > > > text documents. > > > > > > If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the opinion, > > > then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier for > > > ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt > > > material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We rely on > > > html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems tortuous. > > > -tdc > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: > > >> Tom, > > >> > > >> What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have > > >> made a change has the change been documented and published yet? If > > >> not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include the > > >> interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to > > >> the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from > > >> the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we > > >> as a committee can not simply change it because there have been > > >> discussions. > > >> > > >> If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in > > >> opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have committee > > >> reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the > > >> PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to > > >> understand which interfaces are exported. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> John > > >> > > >> > > >> Tom Childers wrote: > > >>> Rahul, John, et al > > >>> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get > > >>> challenging :-) > > >>> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior release) > > >>> and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials > > >>> weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the > > >>> project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. > > >>> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project > > >>> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll have to > > >>> explain ourselves, however. > > >>> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a > > >>> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, add the > > >>> above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC > > >>> review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 > > >>> because of the tardiness of the case materials. > > >>> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, and > > >>> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in > > >>> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) > > >>> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, > > >>> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience members > > >>> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are > > >>> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce > > >>> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. > > >>> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a delta > > >>> from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating deltas; > > >>> they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this > > >>> functional spec. > > >>> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the opinion > > >>> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in section 4 > > >>> covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay > > >>> the same. > > >>> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, > > >>> -tdc > > >>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: > > >>>> Rahul, > > >>>> > > >>>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The project > > >>>> team > > >>>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it sounds like > > >>>> this is a Micro release. > > >>>> > > >>>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface tables > > >>>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the materials. > > >>>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then the > > >>>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that changed. If > > >>>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to include > > >>>> the > > >>>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not > > >>>> provide an > > >>>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not > > >>>> really > > >>>> done a thorough review of the project. > > >>>> > > >>>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional > > >>>> Specification > > >>>> that states: > > >>>> > > >>>> Changes From the Previous Release > > >>>> > > >>>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface table in the > > >>>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the project team. > > >>>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the project > > >>>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list I see > > >>>> the following API changes at a high level: > > >>>> > > >>>> Lexer API > > >>>> Editor API > > >>>> Ant API > > >>>> DB API > > >>>> Refactoring API > > >>>> Palette API > > >>>> Debugger API > > >>>> SPI View Model > > >>>> ProjectUI API > > >>>> DIFF API > > >>>> SPI Navigator API > > >>>> > > >>>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a fairly > > >>>> short > > >>>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the previous > > >>>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system in the > > >>>> interface table. If there are installation location changes then I > > >>>> would simply make a high level directory list like > > >>>> $INSTALL/ide/config, > > >>>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/java1, > > >>>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, > > >>>> $INSTALL/apisupport, > > >>>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can go and > > >>>> read the details in the functional specification. > > >>>> > > >>>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are actual > > >>>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release instead > > >>>> of a Micro release. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> > > >>>> John > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Rahul Shah wrote: > > >>>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release(6.0) > > >>>>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). So what > > >>>>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? > > >>>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface table. The > > >>>>> interface table provided by the project team is very detailed. So > > >>>>> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different > > >>>>> category and put just the category in the opinion? > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Rahul > > >>>>> John Fischer wrote: > > >>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is > > >>>>>> writing and > > >>>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is > > >>>>>> easy to > > >>>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in parentheses > > >>>>>> is so > > >>>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul and > > >>>>>> yourself > > >>>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order keeps any > > >>>>>> political issues out of the opinion. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> So no problem(s). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> John > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: > > >>>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things you are > > >>>>>>> giving feedback on. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion > > >>>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion template > > >>>>>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. And I've > > >>>>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling out the > > >>>>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). > > >>>>>>> -tdc > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Rahul, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to > > >>>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for those > > >>>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an opinion. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or > > >>>>>>>> abstain. > > >>>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It > > >>>>>>>> should also > > >>>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the case owner > > >>>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee line will > > >>>>>>>> look like: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul Shah), > > >>>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John > > >>>>>>>> Fischer. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually alphabetical after > > >>>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee that list > > >>>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain lists > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 members > > >>>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the > > >>>>>>>> opinion > > >>>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a subsection of > > >>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release binding and > > >>>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We should see one > > >>>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the interface > > >>>>>>>> table > > >>>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a high level > > >>>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed interface > > >>>>>>>> table in another document. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR > > >>>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding opinion > > >>>>>>>> subsection (4). > > >>>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the opinion > > >>>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a > > >>>>>>>> paragraph > > >>>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better > > >>>>>>>> understand our > > >>>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion documents > > >>>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. > > >>>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at > > >>>>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>> Rahul > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > sun > > microsystems Systems Architecture Committee > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Netbeans 6.0.1 Core IDE > > Submitted by: Rahul Shah > > File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > > Date: March 18, 2008 > > Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer > > Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com > > > > > > 1. Summary > > > > NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support developing in java (J2SE platform) and possibly other languages. Prior cases for Netbeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/2006/275 . > > > > 2. Decision & Precedence Information > > > > The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. > > > > The project may be delivered in a major Netbeans Consolidation release. See section 4.3 for details. > > > > > > 3. Interfaces > > > > See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the commitment review materials for the current interaces tables. > > > > 4. Opinion > > > > > > This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and one member not participitaing in the vote. > > > > 4.1 Rely on Netbeans review process > > > > LSARC is relying on the netbeans open source development process to identify product architectural issues, and there was little discussion of the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. > > > > 4.2 Why full case > > > > The project team should consider submitting cases like these as fast-tracks. > > > > 4.3 Timely submission of materials > > > > The project was initially requested to be delivered as major release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. The project team should submit the materials well before the release. > > > > 5. Minority Opinion(s) > > > > None. > > > > 6. Advisory Information > > > > > > 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not necessary for reviews. > > > > 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only interfaces that have changed since the last case. > > > > 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped months before the commitment review. > > > > 7. Appendices > > > > 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required > > > > None. > > > > 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised > > > > None. > > > > 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material > > > > Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case directory (LSARC/2007/370). > > > > Functional Specification > > File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html > > mail log > > File: ./mail > > > From sacadmin Fri Mar 28 10:31:06 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SHV6kW001928 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2SHV5SB028402 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:31:05 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYG00B15BBS9Z00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:31:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYG00M98BBRHEE0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:31:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2SHV36o020905 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYG00G01B6X4600@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.2] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYG00GKFBBE0VD0@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:28:20 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Re2: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <1206719588.61417.9.camel@sr1-umpk-19> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: Rahul Shah Cc: lsarc@sun.com Message-id: <8F33659B-4DCE-4403-BCF7-559184439955@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <1206719363.61417.7.camel@sr1-umpk-19> <1206719588.61417.9.camel@sr1-umpk-19> Status: RO Content-Length: 17118 Rahul, Please add citations to prior cases where the opinion has not provided an interfaces table, for example WSARC 2004/014 (approved by WSARC in August 2004), WSARC 2005/635 (approved by WSARC in January 2006), and LSARC 2007/427 (approved by LSARC in February 2008). In section 2, we simply state that we are calling out a precedence that has been established in WSARC for several years. The discussion goes into section 4. Call me if you want some help with the wording :-) -tdc On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:53 AM, John Fischer wrote: > Rahul and Tom, > > The precedence needs to be called out in section 2 > as well. > > Thanks, > > John > > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:49, John Fischer wrote: >> Rahul and Tom, >> >> Please add a subsection in the opinion that discusses >> the precedence set by this opinion for opinion writing. >> The precedence being set is the interface table. This >> will cause a final decision to be made about the necessity >> of having section 3 in the opinion at all. That subsection >> should reflect the email dialog had between us. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 18:03, Rahul Shah wrote: >>> The opinion is updated with the comments received so far. The text >>> version of the opinion is attached. Html version can be found at >>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rahul >>> >>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>> John, >>>> >>>> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. >>>> Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we >>>> operated in >>>> WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to >>>> find >>>> interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have >>>> opinions >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed >>>> simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of putting ARC >>>> materials into web forms and databases, moving away from formatted >>>> text documents. >>>> >>>> If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the >>>> opinion, >>>> then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier >>>> for >>>> ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt >>>> material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We >>>> rely on >>>> html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems >>>> tortuous. >>>> -tdc >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have >>>>> made a change has the change been documented and published >>>>> yet? If >>>>> not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include >>>>> the >>>>> interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to >>>>> the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from >>>>> the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we >>>>> as a committee can not simply change it because there have been >>>>> discussions. >>>>> >>>>> If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in >>>>> opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have >>>>> committee >>>>> reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the >>>>> PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to >>>>> understand which interfaces are exported. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>> Rahul, John, et al >>>>>> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get >>>>>> challenging :-) >>>>>> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior >>>>>> release) >>>>>> and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials >>>>>> weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the >>>>>> project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. >>>>>> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project >>>>>> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll >>>>>> have to >>>>>> explain ourselves, however. >>>>>> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a >>>>>> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, >>>>>> add the >>>>>> above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC >>>>>> review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 >>>>>> because of the tardiness of the case materials. >>>>>> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, >>>>>> and >>>>>> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in >>>>>> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and >>>>>> (2) >>>>>> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, >>>>>> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience >>>>>> members >>>>>> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are >>>>>> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce >>>>>> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. >>>>>> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a >>>>>> delta >>>>>> from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating >>>>>> deltas; >>>>>> they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this >>>>>> functional spec. >>>>>> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the >>>>>> opinion >>>>>> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in >>>>>> section 4 >>>>>> covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay >>>>>> the same. >>>>>> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, >>>>>> -tdc >>>>>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The >>>>>>> project >>>>>>> team >>>>>>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it >>>>>>> sounds like >>>>>>> this is a Micro release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface >>>>>>> tables >>>>>>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the >>>>>>> materials. >>>>>>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that >>>>>>> changed. If >>>>>>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to >>>>>>> include >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not >>>>>>> provide an >>>>>>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> done a thorough review of the project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional >>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>> that states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changes From the Previous Release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface >>>>>>> table in the >>>>>>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>> project team. >>>>>>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the >>>>>>> project >>>>>>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list >>>>>>> I see >>>>>>> the following API changes at a high level: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lexer API >>>>>>> Editor API >>>>>>> Ant API >>>>>>> DB API >>>>>>> Refactoring API >>>>>>> Palette API >>>>>>> Debugger API >>>>>>> SPI View Model >>>>>>> ProjectUI API >>>>>>> DIFF API >>>>>>> SPI Navigator API >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a >>>>>>> fairly >>>>>>> short >>>>>>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the >>>>>>> previous >>>>>>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> interface table. If there are installation location changes >>>>>>> then I >>>>>>> would simply make a high level directory list like >>>>>>> $INSTALL/ide/config, >>>>>>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/ >>>>>>> java1, >>>>>>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, >>>>>>> $INSTALL/apisupport, >>>>>>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can >>>>>>> go and >>>>>>> read the details in the functional specification. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are >>>>>>> actual >>>>>>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release >>>>>>> instead >>>>>>> of a Micro release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release >>>>>>>> (6.0) >>>>>>>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). >>>>>>>> So what >>>>>>>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? >>>>>>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface >>>>>>>> table. The >>>>>>>> interface table provided by the project team is very >>>>>>>> detailed. So >>>>>>>> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different >>>>>>>> category and put just the category in the opinion? >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is >>>>>>>>> writing and >>>>>>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is >>>>>>>>> easy to >>>>>>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in >>>>>>>>> parentheses >>>>>>>>> is so >>>>>>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order >>>>>>>>> keeps any >>>>>>>>> political issues out of the opinion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So no problem(s). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things >>>>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>>> giving feedback on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion >>>>>>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion >>>>>>>>>> template >>>>>>>>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. >>>>>>>>>> And I've >>>>>>>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling >>>>>>>>>> out the >>>>>>>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). >>>>>>>>>> -tdc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to >>>>>>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for >>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an >>>>>>>>>>> opinion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or >>>>>>>>>>> abstain. >>>>>>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It >>>>>>>>>>> should also >>>>>>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the >>>>>>>>>>> case owner >>>>>>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee >>>>>>>>>>> line will >>>>>>>>>>> look like: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul >>>>>>>>>>> Shah), >>>>>>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>>>>>>>>> Fischer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually >>>>>>>>>>> alphabetical after >>>>>>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee >>>>>>>>>>> that list >>>>>>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain >>>>>>>>>>> lists >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 >>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the >>>>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a >>>>>>>>>>> subsection of >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release >>>>>>>>>>> binding and >>>>>>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We >>>>>>>>>>> should see one >>>>>>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the >>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a >>>>>>>>>>> high level >>>>>>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed >>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>> table in another document. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR >>>>>>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding >>>>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>>>> subsection (4). >>>>>>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the >>>>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph >>>>>>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better >>>>>>>>>>> understand our >>>>>>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion >>>>>>>>>>> documents >>>>>>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. >>>>>>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at >>>>>>>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________________ >>> __ >>> sun >>> microsystems Systems Architecture Committee >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------------ >>> >>> Subject: Netbeans 6.0.1 Core IDE >>> Submitted by: Rahul Shah >>> File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>> Date: March 18, 2008 >>> Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri >>> Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer >>> Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com >>> >>> >>> 1. Summary >>> >>> NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on >>> the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide >>> essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support >>> developing in java (J2SE platform) and possibly other languages. >>> Prior cases for Netbeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/ >>> 2006/275 . >>> >>> 2. Decision & Precedence Information >>> >>> The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. >>> >>> The project may be delivered in a major Netbeans Consolidation >>> release. See section 4.3 for details. >>> >>> >>> 3. Interfaces >>> >>> See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/ >>> LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the >>> commitment review materials for the current interaces tables. >>> >>> 4. Opinion >>> >>> >>> This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the >>> meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and >>> one member not participitaing in the vote. >>> >>> 4.1 Rely on Netbeans review process >>> >>> LSARC is relying on the netbeans open source development process >>> to identify product architectural issues, and there was little >>> discussion of the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. >>> >>> 4.2 Why full case >>> >>> The project team should consider submitting cases like these as >>> fast-tracks. >>> >>> 4.3 Timely submission of materials >>> >>> The project was initially requested to be delivered as major >>> release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. >>> So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. The >>> project team should submit the materials well before the release. >>> >>> 5. Minority Opinion(s) >>> >>> None. >>> >>> 6. Advisory Information >>> >>> >>> 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking >>> interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not >>> necessary for reviews. >>> >>> 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be >>> fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only >>> interfaces that have changed since the last case. >>> >>> 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before >>> product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped >>> months before the commitment review. >>> >>> 7. Appendices >>> >>> 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required >>> >>> None. >>> >>> 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised >>> >>> None. >>> >>> 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material >>> >>> Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case >>> directory (LSARC/2007/370). >>> >>> Functional Specification >>> File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html >>> mail log >>> File: ./mail >>> >> > From sacadmin Fri Mar 28 11:03:53 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SI3q9E002736 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2SI3pSQ029573 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:03:51 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYG00D01CUEGJ00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:03:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYG00DHLCUE0T00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:03:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2SI3opm000822 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:03:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYG00E01C29ZW00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:03:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 129.145.154.70 ([129.145.154.70]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYG00AUUCTUY8B0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:03:30 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:03:30 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Re2: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <8F33659B-4DCE-4403-BCF7-559184439955@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@Sun.COM To: Tom Childers Cc: John Fischer , Rahul Shah , lsarc@Sun.COM Reply-to: John.Fischer@Sun.COM Message-id: <1206727409.38750.0.camel@sr1-umpk-19> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.301 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <1206719363.61417.7.camel@sr1-umpk-19> <1206719588.61417.9.camel@sr1-umpk-19> <8F33659B-4DCE-4403-BCF7-559184439955@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 18234 Tom, I would also argue that section 3 is no longer necessary in the brave new world. Thanks, John On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 10:28, Tom Childers wrote: > Rahul, > > Please add citations to prior cases where the opinion has not > provided an interfaces table, for example WSARC 2004/014 (approved by > WSARC in August 2004), WSARC 2005/635 (approved by WSARC in January > 2006), and LSARC 2007/427 (approved by LSARC in February 2008). > > In section 2, we simply state that we are calling out a precedence > that has been established in WSARC for several years. The discussion > goes into section 4. Call me if you want some help with the wording :-) > -tdc > > > On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:53 AM, John Fischer wrote: > > Rahul and Tom, > > > > The precedence needs to be called out in section 2 > > as well. > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > > > > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:49, John Fischer wrote: > >> Rahul and Tom, > >> > >> Please add a subsection in the opinion that discusses > >> the precedence set by this opinion for opinion writing. > >> The precedence being set is the interface table. This > >> will cause a final decision to be made about the necessity > >> of having section 3 in the opinion at all. That subsection > >> should reflect the email dialog had between us. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> John > >> > >> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 18:03, Rahul Shah wrote: > >>> The opinion is updated with the comments received so far. The text > >>> version of the opinion is attached. Html version can be found at > >>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Rahul > >>> > >>> Tom Childers wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> > >>>> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. > >>>> Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we > >>>> operated in > >>>> WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to > >>>> find > >>>> interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have > >>>> opinions > >>>> :-) > >>>> > >>>> SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed > >>>> simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of putting ARC > >>>> materials into web forms and databases, moving away from formatted > >>>> text documents. > >>>> > >>>> If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the > >>>> opinion, > >>>> then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier > >>>> for > >>>> ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt > >>>> material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We > >>>> rely on > >>>> html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems > >>>> tortuous. > >>>> -tdc > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they have > >>>>> made a change has the change been documented and published > >>>>> yet? If > >>>>> not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include > >>>>> the > >>>>> interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply refer to > >>>>> the case materials then we should remove the section entirely from > >>>>> the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it and we > >>>>> as a committee can not simply change it because there have been > >>>>> discussions. > >>>>> > >>>>> If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., mistakes) in > >>>>> opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have > >>>>> committee > >>>>> reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the > >>>>> PACs. It also includes technical people who read the opinions to > >>>>> understand which interfaces are exported. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom Childers wrote: > >>>>>> Rahul, John, et al > >>>>>> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get > >>>>>> challenging :-) > >>>>>> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior > >>>>>> release) > >>>>>> and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials > >>>>>> weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the > >>>>>> project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. > >>>>>> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the project > >>>>>> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll > >>>>>> have to > >>>>>> explain ourselves, however. > >>>>>> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a > >>>>>> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, > >>>>>> add the > >>>>>> above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC > >>>>>> review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 > >>>>>> because of the tardiness of the case materials. > >>>>>> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since interfaces in > >>>>>> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and > >>>>>> (2) > >>>>>> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, > >>>>>> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience > >>>>>> members > >>>>>> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional spec are > >>>>>> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to reduce > >>>>>> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. > >>>>>> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a > >>>>>> delta > >>>>>> from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating > >>>>>> deltas; > >>>>>> they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this > >>>>>> functional spec. > >>>>>> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the > >>>>>> opinion > >>>>>> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in > >>>>>> section 4 > >>>>>> covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to stay > >>>>>> the same. > >>>>>> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, > >>>>>> -tdc > >>>>>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: > >>>>>>> Rahul, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The > >>>>>>> project > >>>>>>> team > >>>>>>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it > >>>>>>> sounds like > >>>>>>> this is a Micro release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface > >>>>>>> tables > >>>>>>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the > >>>>>>> materials. > >>>>>>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that > >>>>>>> changed. If > >>>>>>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to > >>>>>>> include > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not > >>>>>>> provide an > >>>>>>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we have not > >>>>>>> really > >>>>>>> done a thorough review of the project. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional > >>>>>>> Specification > >>>>>>> that states: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Changes From the Previous Release > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface > >>>>>>> table in the > >>>>>>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the > >>>>>>> project team. > >>>>>>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the > >>>>>>> project > >>>>>>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list > >>>>>>> I see > >>>>>>> the following API changes at a high level: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Lexer API > >>>>>>> Editor API > >>>>>>> Ant API > >>>>>>> DB API > >>>>>>> Refactoring API > >>>>>>> Palette API > >>>>>>> Debugger API > >>>>>>> SPI View Model > >>>>>>> ProjectUI API > >>>>>>> DIFF API > >>>>>>> SPI Navigator API > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a > >>>>>>> fairly > >>>>>>> short > >>>>>>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the > >>>>>>> previous > >>>>>>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system > >>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>> interface table. If there are installation location changes > >>>>>>> then I > >>>>>>> would simply make a high level directory list like > >>>>>>> $INSTALL/ide/config, > >>>>>>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/ > >>>>>>> java1, > >>>>>>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, > >>>>>>> $INSTALL/apisupport, > >>>>>>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can > >>>>>>> go and > >>>>>>> read the details in the functional specification. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are > >>>>>>> actual > >>>>>>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release > >>>>>>> instead > >>>>>>> of a Micro release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: > >>>>>>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release > >>>>>>>> (6.0) > >>>>>>>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). > >>>>>>>> So what > >>>>>>>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? > >>>>>>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface > >>>>>>>> table. The > >>>>>>>> interface table provided by the project team is very > >>>>>>>> detailed. So > >>>>>>>> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different > >>>>>>>> category and put just the category in the opinion? > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Rahul > >>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is > >>>>>>>>> writing and > >>>>>>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner which is > >>>>>>>>> easy to > >>>>>>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in > >>>>>>>>> parentheses > >>>>>>>>> is so > >>>>>>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> yourself > >>>>>>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order > >>>>>>>>> keeps any > >>>>>>>>> political issues out of the opinion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So no problem(s). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things > >>>>>>>>>> you are > >>>>>>>>>> giving feedback on. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion > >>>>>>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion > >>>>>>>>>> template > >>>>>>>>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. > >>>>>>>>>> And I've > >>>>>>>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling > >>>>>>>>>> out the > >>>>>>>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). > >>>>>>>>>> -tdc > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Rahul, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be sure to > >>>>>>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for > >>>>>>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern mailers. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an > >>>>>>>>>>> opinion. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, deny or > >>>>>>>>>>> abstain. > >>>>>>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It > >>>>>>>>>>> should also > >>>>>>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the > >>>>>>>>>>> case owner > >>>>>>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee > >>>>>>>>>>> line will > >>>>>>>>>>> look like: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul > >>>>>>>>>>> Shah), > >>>>>>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John > >>>>>>>>>>> Fischer. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually > >>>>>>>>>>> alphabetical after > >>>>>>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee > >>>>>>>>>>> that list > >>>>>>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain > >>>>>>>>>>> lists > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 > >>>>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included in the > >>>>>>>>>>> opinion > >>>>>>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a > >>>>>>>>>>> subsection of > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release > >>>>>>>>>>> binding and > >>>>>>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We > >>>>>>>>>>> should see one > >>>>>>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the > >>>>>>>>>>> interface > >>>>>>>>>>> table > >>>>>>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a > >>>>>>>>>>> high level > >>>>>>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed > >>>>>>>>>>> interface > >>>>>>>>>>> table in another document. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR > >>>>>>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding > >>>>>>>>>>> opinion > >>>>>>>>>>> subsection (4). > >>>>>>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the > >>>>>>>>>>> opinion > >>>>>>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and then a > >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph > >>>>>>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better > >>>>>>>>>>> understand our > >>>>>>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion > >>>>>>>>>>> documents > >>>>>>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March 31st. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rahul > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________________ > >>> __ > >>> sun > >>> microsystems Systems Architecture Committee > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ------------ > >>> > >>> Subject: Netbeans 6.0.1 Core IDE > >>> Submitted by: Rahul Shah > >>> File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > >>> Date: March 18, 2008 > >>> Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri > >>> Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer > >>> Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. Summary > >>> > >>> NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on > >>> the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide > >>> essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support > >>> developing in java (J2SE platform) and possibly other languages. > >>> Prior cases for Netbeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/ > >>> 2006/275 . > >>> > >>> 2. Decision & Precedence Information > >>> > >>> The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. > >>> > >>> The project may be delivered in a major Netbeans Consolidation > >>> release. See section 4.3 for details. > >>> > >>> > >>> 3. Interfaces > >>> > >>> See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/ > >>> LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the > >>> commitment review materials for the current interaces tables. > >>> > >>> 4. Opinion > >>> > >>> > >>> This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the > >>> meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and > >>> one member not participitaing in the vote. > >>> > >>> 4.1 Rely on Netbeans review process > >>> > >>> LSARC is relying on the netbeans open source development process > >>> to identify product architectural issues, and there was little > >>> discussion of the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. > >>> > >>> 4.2 Why full case > >>> > >>> The project team should consider submitting cases like these as > >>> fast-tracks. > >>> > >>> 4.3 Timely submission of materials > >>> > >>> The project was initially requested to be delivered as major > >>> release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. > >>> So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. The > >>> project team should submit the materials well before the release. > >>> > >>> 5. Minority Opinion(s) > >>> > >>> None. > >>> > >>> 6. Advisory Information > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking > >>> interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not > >>> necessary for reviews. > >>> > >>> 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be > >>> fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only > >>> interfaces that have changed since the last case. > >>> > >>> 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before > >>> product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped > >>> months before the commitment review. > >>> > >>> 7. Appendices > >>> > >>> 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required > >>> > >>> None. > >>> > >>> 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised > >>> > >>> None. > >>> > >>> 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material > >>> > >>> Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case > >>> directory (LSARC/2007/370). > >>> > >>> Functional Specification > >>> File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html > >>> mail log > >>> File: ./mail > >>> > >> > > > From sacadmin Fri Mar 28 12:12:27 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SJCRuc005219 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2SJCGXp029970 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:12:26 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYG00E03G0NJE00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYG00127G0M5390@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2SJCM3h013755 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYG00A01FIH8S00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.2] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYG00CXUG07UM40@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:09:36 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Re2: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <1206727409.38750.0.camel@sr1-umpk-19> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: Rahul Shah , lsarc@sun.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <1206719363.61417.7.camel@sr1-umpk-19> <1206719588.61417.9.camel@sr1-umpk-19> <8F33659B-4DCE-4403-BCF7-559184439955@sun.com> <1206727409.38750.0.camel@sr1-umpk-19> Status: RO Content-Length: 18893 *That* is a good discussion topic :-) Sometimes the interfaces are in the one-pager, sometimes the 20Q doc, sometimes a functional spec or architectural spec. I would like to preserve a link to the interfaces table for now. (John Plocher, Aarti and I are working on making this into an online app, with database tables. So the opinion would become a SQL query. A link to interfaces emulates the -- hopefully -- future structure we are starting to prototype.) -tdc On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:03 AM, John Fischer wrote: > Tom, > > I would also argue that section 3 is no longer necessary > in the brave new world. > > Thanks, > > John > > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 10:28, Tom Childers wrote: >> Rahul, >> >> Please add citations to prior cases where the opinion has not >> provided an interfaces table, for example WSARC 2004/014 (approved by >> WSARC in August 2004), WSARC 2005/635 (approved by WSARC in January >> 2006), and LSARC 2007/427 (approved by LSARC in February 2008). >> >> In section 2, we simply state that we are calling out a precedence >> that has been established in WSARC for several years. The discussion >> goes into section 4. Call me if you want some help with the >> wording :-) >> -tdc >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:53 AM, John Fischer wrote: >>> Rahul and Tom, >>> >>> The precedence needs to be called out in section 2 >>> as well. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:49, John Fischer wrote: >>>> Rahul and Tom, >>>> >>>> Please add a subsection in the opinion that discusses >>>> the precedence set by this opinion for opinion writing. >>>> The precedence being set is the interface table. This >>>> will cause a final decision to be made about the necessity >>>> of having section 3 in the opinion at all. That subsection >>>> should reflect the email dialog had between us. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 18:03, Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>> The opinion is updated with the comments received so far. The text >>>>> version of the opinion is attached. Html version can be found at >>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Rahul >>>>> >>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>> John, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an >>>>>> opinion. >>>>>> Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we >>>>>> operated in >>>>>> WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to >>>>>> find >>>>>> interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have >>>>>> opinions >>>>>> :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> SAC Advocates has not changed procedure. We simply discussed >>>>>> simplifying the opinion as part of the larger effort of >>>>>> putting ARC >>>>>> materials into web forms and databases, moving away from >>>>>> formatted >>>>>> text documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to dig in, and make us copy the IF table into the >>>>>> opinion, >>>>>> then we can certainly do it. But I'm trying to make life easier >>>>>> for >>>>>> ARC members, not harder. Why spend a half hour exporting .odt >>>>>> material into text and html, when a link works just fine? We >>>>>> rely on >>>>>> html and wikis all over the place; duplicating this stuff seems >>>>>> tortuous. >>>>>> -tdc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:40 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the outcome of the SAC Advocates discussion? If they >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> made a change has the change been documented and published >>>>>>> yet? If >>>>>>> not then we need to maintain the status quo which is to include >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> interface table. If this is to be removed and we simply >>>>>>> refer to >>>>>>> the case materials then we should remove the section entirely >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> the opinion. This is why SAC Advocates need to position it >>>>>>> and we >>>>>>> as a committee can not simply change it because there have been >>>>>>> discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are issues with the interface tables (i.e., >>>>>>> mistakes) in >>>>>>> opinion then these need to be corrected and is why we have >>>>>>> committee >>>>>>> reviews of opinions. The target audience is more then just the >>>>>>> PACs. It also includes technical people who read the >>>>>>> opinions to >>>>>>> understand which interfaces are exported. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>>>> Rahul, John, et al >>>>>>>> This just goes to show that even the simplest of opinions get >>>>>>>> challenging :-) >>>>>>>> There are indeed big differences between NB 5.5 (the prior >>>>>>>> release) >>>>>>>> and 6.0. This in fact started out as a 6.0 case, but materials >>>>>>>> weren't delivered until after 6.0 was released, so we asked the >>>>>>>> project team to make this a 6.0.1 review. >>>>>>>> So this was defined as a review of a major release by the >>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>> team, and we should stick with that in the opinion. We'll >>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>> explain ourselves, however. >>>>>>>> I suggest that we state "major release" in section 2, with a >>>>>>>> reference to "See section 4 for details." Then in section 4, >>>>>>>> add the >>>>>>>> above explanation, to make it clear that this was the first ARC >>>>>>>> review of the NB 6 major release, even though we reviewed 6.0.1 >>>>>>>> because of the tardiness of the case materials. >>>>>>>> I do not like to see multiple copies of the interfaces tables, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> we've been discussing this in SAC advocates, since >>>>>>>> interfaces in >>>>>>>> both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and >>>>>>>> (2) >>>>>>>> prone to errors. I generally omit the interfaces from opinions, >>>>>>>> keeping the content focused and useful for target audience >>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>> like the PAC. I agree that the details in the functional >>>>>>>> spec are >>>>>>>> too low-level, but we've already asked the project team to >>>>>>>> reduce >>>>>>>> the level of detail the next time they come back for review. >>>>>>>> The interfaces table in the commitment materials is in fact a >>>>>>>> delta >>>>>>>> from the prior case. NB has been really good at generating >>>>>>>> deltas; >>>>>>>> they in fact have many more interfaces than we see in this >>>>>>>> functional spec. >>>>>>>> SO, as the case owner, I accept the feedback to update the >>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>> regarding the major release, I believe some explanation in >>>>>>>> section 4 >>>>>>>> covers the issue, and I would like the interfaces section to >>>>>>>> stay >>>>>>>> the same. >>>>>>>> Welcoming rebuttals and more comments, >>>>>>>> -tdc >>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We, the committee, do not define the release taxonomy. The >>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>> team >>>>>>>>> does that and we simply record the taxonomy. However, it >>>>>>>>> sounds like >>>>>>>>> this is a Micro release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you look at the various Gnome cases you will see interface >>>>>>>>> tables >>>>>>>>> that are both high level in the opinion and detailed in the >>>>>>>>> materials. >>>>>>>>> For example, the opinions will talk about Gtk+ and ATK. Then >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> materials will talk at the function level interfaces that >>>>>>>>> changed. If >>>>>>>>> you can not do this for the current opinion then we need to >>>>>>>>> include >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> interface table as specified in the materials. If we can not >>>>>>>>> provide an >>>>>>>>> interface table for the opinion then in my "opinion" we >>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> done a thorough review of the project. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In terms of the case there is a section in the Functional >>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>> that states: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Changes From the Previous Release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that comparing this list to the interface >>>>>>>>> table in the >>>>>>>>> Functional Specification shows a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>> project team. >>>>>>>>> The project team seems to be giving us all the APIs for the >>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>> in the interface table. However, looking at the changes list >>>>>>>>> I see >>>>>>>>> the following API changes at a high level: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lexer API >>>>>>>>> Editor API >>>>>>>>> Ant API >>>>>>>>> DB API >>>>>>>>> Refactoring API >>>>>>>>> Palette API >>>>>>>>> Debugger API >>>>>>>>> SPI View Model >>>>>>>>> ProjectUI API >>>>>>>>> DIFF API >>>>>>>>> SPI Navigator API >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I might have missed a couple or three but that seems like a >>>>>>>>> fairly >>>>>>>>> short >>>>>>>>> list. Also unless the installation location changed from the >>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>> release then I wouldn't make that big list of the file system >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> interface table. If there are installation location changes >>>>>>>>> then I >>>>>>>>> would simply make a high level directory list like >>>>>>>>> $INSTALL/ide/config, >>>>>>>>> $INSTALL/ide/modules, $INSTALL/ide/update_tracking, $INSTALL/ >>>>>>>>> java1, >>>>>>>>> $INSTALL/java1/ant, $INSTALL/java1/update_tracking, >>>>>>>>> $INSTALL/apisupport, >>>>>>>>> $INSTALL/harness. Shorter and more readable. The reader can >>>>>>>>> go and >>>>>>>>> read the details in the functional specification. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Furthermore, if all the interfaces in the interface table are >>>>>>>>> actual >>>>>>>>> differences then I think that this might be a Minor release >>>>>>>>> instead >>>>>>>>> of a Micro release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In this case the materials were submitted for a major release >>>>>>>>>> (6.0) >>>>>>>>>> but the case was later considered as micro release(6.0.1). >>>>>>>>>> So what >>>>>>>>>> should the opinion recommend(major or micro release)? >>>>>>>>>> I did not get the point of having high level interface >>>>>>>>>> table. The >>>>>>>>>> interface table provided by the project team is very >>>>>>>>>> detailed. So >>>>>>>>>> are you suggesting me to merge the interfaces into different >>>>>>>>>> category and put just the category in the opinion? >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is fine for Rahul to write and submit the opinion. He is >>>>>>>>>>> writing and >>>>>>>>>>> submitting it under your authority as the case owner >>>>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>>>> easy to >>>>>>>>>>> understand if your name is first. His name being in >>>>>>>>>>> parentheses >>>>>>>>>>> is so >>>>>>>>>>> that if there are questions we know who to ask (i.e., Rahul >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>>>>>> as the owner). Then having everyone in alphabetic order >>>>>>>>>>> keeps any >>>>>>>>>>> political issues out of the opinion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So no problem(s). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies. I advised Rahul to do some of the things >>>>>>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>>>>> giving feedback on. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I understood that it was fine for Rahul to be the opinion >>>>>>>>>>>> submitter, which is a separate line item in the opinion >>>>>>>>>>>> template >>>>>>>>>>>> I have. The committee line is just the committee line. >>>>>>>>>>>> And I've >>>>>>>>>>>> always just alphabetized the committee, without calling >>>>>>>>>>>> out the >>>>>>>>>>>> case owner (who appears elsewhere in the materials). >>>>>>>>>>>> -tdc >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:58 PM, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rahul, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft opinion. Please be >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure to >>>>>>>>>>>>> attach an ascii version of the opinion to the email for >>>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>>> of us who read our committee email from non-modern >>>>>>>>>>>>> mailers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a couple of things to keep in mind when writing an >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Committee line should read who voted to approve, >>>>>>>>>>>>> deny or >>>>>>>>>>>>> abstain. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It should not include those who are non-participating. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> should also >>>>>>>>>>>>> include yourself as the author in parentheses after the >>>>>>>>>>>>> case owner >>>>>>>>>>>>> with "opinion written by Rahul Shah". So the Committee >>>>>>>>>>>>> line will >>>>>>>>>>>>> look like: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Committee: Tom Childers (opinion written by Rahul >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shah), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Llyod Chambers, Jyri Vriki. Abstain: John >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fischer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that the committee list is actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> alphabetical after >>>>>>>>>>>>> the case owner. If there is a Minority in the committee >>>>>>>>>>>>> that list >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be inserted in between the Majority and the Abstain >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "Minority: .". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your comment in section 2 which states that there were 5 >>>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>> with 1 abstaining and 1 not-participating if included >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>> should go into the opinion section (4) and not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsection of >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> section as it is an introductory sentence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 2 should also include a comment on the release >>>>>>>>>>>>> binding and >>>>>>>>>>>>> not just simply NetBeans Consolidation release. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> should see one >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Major, Minor or Micro/Patch release of NetBeans. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is some controversy over what should be in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>>>> table >>>>>>>>>>>>> section (3). In my opinion this should at least have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> high level >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface table present with references to the detailed >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>>>> table in another document. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For every comment in the Advisory section (6) and TCA/TCR >>>>>>>>>>>>> sections (appendix B) there needs to be a corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsection (4). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it looks like you need to have 3 subsections in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The headings should reflect the advice and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then a >>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph >>>>>>>>>>>>> of further details that way if someone wants to better >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand our >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning they can consult these sections. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of these things are listed in the various opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>> documents >>>>>>>>>>>>> found at http://sac.sfbay/arcs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to reading the updated opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rahul Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review, and send your comments by cob on March >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31st. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The opinion can be viewed at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __________________________________________________________________ >>>>> __ >>>>> __ >>>>> sun >>>>> microsystems Systems Architecture Committee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------ >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Netbeans 6.0.1 Core IDE >>>>> Submitted by: Rahul Shah >>>>> File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html >>>>> Date: March 18, 2008 >>>>> Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri >>>>> Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer >>>>> Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Summary >>>>> >>>>> NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on >>>>> the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide >>>>> essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support >>>>> developing in java (J2SE platform) and possibly other languages. >>>>> Prior cases for Netbeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/ >>>>> 2006/275 . >>>>> >>>>> 2. Decision & Precedence Information >>>>> >>>>> The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. >>>>> >>>>> The project may be delivered in a major Netbeans Consolidation >>>>> release. See section 4.3 for details. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. Interfaces >>>>> >>>>> See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/ >>>>> LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the >>>>> commitment review materials for the current interaces tables. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Opinion >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the >>>>> meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and >>>>> one member not participitaing in the vote. >>>>> >>>>> 4.1 Rely on Netbeans review process >>>>> >>>>> LSARC is relying on the netbeans open source development process >>>>> to identify product architectural issues, and there was little >>>>> discussion of the case materials, which seem quite >>>>> straightforward. >>>>> >>>>> 4.2 Why full case >>>>> >>>>> The project team should consider submitting cases like these as >>>>> fast-tracks. >>>>> >>>>> 4.3 Timely submission of materials >>>>> >>>>> The project was initially requested to be delivered as major >>>>> release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. >>>>> So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. The >>>>> project team should submit the materials well before the release. >>>>> >>>>> 5. Minority Opinion(s) >>>>> >>>>> None. >>>>> >>>>> 6. Advisory Information >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking >>>>> interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not >>>>> necessary for reviews. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be >>>>> fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only >>>>> interfaces that have changed since the last case. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before >>>>> product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped >>>>> months before the commitment review. >>>>> >>>>> 7. Appendices >>>>> >>>>> 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required >>>>> >>>>> None. >>>>> >>>>> 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised >>>>> >>>>> None. >>>>> >>>>> 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material >>>>> >>>>> Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case >>>>> directory (LSARC/2007/370). >>>>> >>>>> Functional Specification >>>>> File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html >>>>> mail log >>>>> File: ./mail >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > From sacadmin Fri Mar 28 19:35:46 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2T2Zjjx018632 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2T2Zd3m018485 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:35:44 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYH003070JG5K00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYH00BPW0JGKZD0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2T2Ze1A012427 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYH00K010DO1G00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from Terrence.Miller@Sun.COM) for lsarc@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([75.7.24.164]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYH00D890JGHMD0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:35:41 -0700 From: Terrence Miller Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> Sender: Terrence.Miller@sun.com To: Tom Childers Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, lsarc@sun.com Message-id: <47EDAAFD.5030800@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) Status: RO Content-Length: 492 IMO the key issue is not the format of the opinion but rather the stability of the information. Links that point outside the SAC archives are a problem. > > Tom Childers wrote: >> John, >> >> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an opinion. >> Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we operated in >> WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an opinion to find >> interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't even have >> opinions :-) From sacadmin Mon Mar 31 06:52:26 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2VDqPSr026479 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2VDqGq8023315 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:52:24 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYL00G0XL7A1N00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYL00D3IL79TF40@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2VDqL1e024251 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYL00E01L41W400@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.2] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYL009FFL78UG20@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc@Sun.COM); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:49:48 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47EDAAFD.5030800@sun.com> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: Terrence Miller Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, lsarc@sun.com Message-id: <87C98F87-D32F-4FE9-BCA4-21D380FAEF1C@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <47EDAAFD.5030800@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 686 I don't see any reason for linking outside of SAC. The IF tables are always in the case materials, somewhere. -tdc On Mar 28, 2008, at 7:35 PM, Terrence Miller wrote: > IMO the key issue is not the format of the opinion but rather the > stability of the information. Links that > point outside the SAC archives are a problem. >> >> Tom Childers wrote: >>> John, >>> >>> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an >>> opinion. Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way >>> we operated in WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on >>> an opinion to find interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases >>> don't even have opinions :-) > From sacadmin Mon Mar 31 14:36:48 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2VLamc2012154 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2VLalj7010904 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYM00E016PBAX00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYM00B3F6PAD110@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2VLak3a012691 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:36:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYM0070151JE100@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:36:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.18.126.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYM002206P6LKG0@mail-amer.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:36:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:39:37 -0700 From: Rahul Shah Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <87C98F87-D32F-4FE9-BCA4-21D380FAEF1C@sun.com> Sender: Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM To: Tom Childers Cc: Terrence Miller , John.Fischer@Sun.COM, lsarc@Sun.COM Message-id: <47F15A19.3060700@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ebhULfdTZGqUBgNh3X14fQ)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <47EDAAFD.5030800@sun.com> <87C98F87-D32F-4FE9-BCA4-21D380FAEF1C@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 4984 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ebhULfdTZGqUBgNh3X14fQ) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, The updated opinion is attached. The html version is available at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html . Please review it and provide comments. Thanks, Rahul Tom Childers wrote: > I don't see any reason for linking outside of SAC. The IF tables are > always in the case materials, somewhere. > -tdc > > > On Mar 28, 2008, at 7:35 PM, Terrence Miller wrote: >> IMO the key issue is not the format of the opinion but rather the >> stability of the information. Links that >> point outside the SAC archives are a problem. >>> >>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>> John, >>>> >>>> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an >>>> opinion. Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way we >>>> operated in WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely on an >>>> opinion to find interfaces. For one thing, most of our cases don't >>>> even have opinions :-) >> > --Boundary_(ID_ebhULfdTZGqUBgNh3X14fQ) Content-type: text/plain; name=netbeans_opinion.txt Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline; filename=netbeans_opinion.txt sun microsystems Systems Architecture Committee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: NetBeans 6.0.1 Core IDE Submitted by: Rahul Shah File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html Date: March 18, 2008 Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com 1. Summary NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support developing in Java (J2SE platform) and other languages. Prior cases for NetBeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/2006/275 . 2. Decision & Precedence Information The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. The project may be delivered in a major NetBeans Consolidation release. See section 4.3 for details. As per the precedence in WSARC(for example WSARC 2004/014 (approved by WSARC in August 2004), WSARC 2005/635 (approved by WSARC in January 2006), and LSARC 2007/427 (approved by LSARC in February 2008)) this opinion just includes the link to Interface tables in Commitment materials. 3. Interfaces See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the commitment review materials for the current interfaces tables. 4. Opinion This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and one member not participating in the vote. 4.1 Rely on NetBeans review process LSARC is relying on the NetBeans open source development process to identify product architectural issues, and there was little discussion on the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. 4.2 Why full case The project team should consider submitting cases like these as fast-tracks. 4.3 Reviewed as a Major Release Major changes to interfaces were reviewed and approved in this case because it is the first review of the NetBeans 6.0 major release. The project was initially requested to be delivered as major release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. 4.4 Interface tables in Opinion There was a discussion about including Interface tables in this opinion document(please see mail file for details). WSARC has previously omitted Interface tables in Opinions, as interfaces in both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) prone to errors. LSARC will accept opinions with a link to the interfaces tables in the case materials, in lieu of a copy of the tables. 5. Minority Opinion(s) None. 6. Advisory Information 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not necessary for reviews. 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only interfaces that have changed since the last case. 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped months before the commitment review. 7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required None. 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised None. 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case directory (LSARC/2007/370). Functional Specification File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html mail log File: ./mail --Boundary_(ID_ebhULfdTZGqUBgNh3X14fQ)-- From sacadmin Mon Mar 31 16:47:13 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2VNlCtw017608 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m2VNl74S021321 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 07:47:11 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYM00I01CQL1Y00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYM0092GCQLN3E0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m2VNl9Hx028978 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYM00D01CLB8900@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from Terrence.Miller@Sun.COM) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.146.86.55] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYM00F86CQIR400@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:47:06 -0700 From: Terrence Miller Subject: Permanence of materials (Was Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370) Sender: Terrence.Miller@sun.com To: Tom Childers , lsarc Reply-to: Terrence.Miller@sun.com Message-id: <47F177FA.2040803@Sun.COM> Organization: Sun Microsystems MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_EMCd1p26MvZuY/qrvLx/fQ)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) Status: RO Content-Length: 1100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_EMCd1p26MvZuY/qrvLx/fQ) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Tom Childers wrote: >> I don't see any reason for linking outside of SAC. The IF tables are always in the case materials, somewhere. >> -tdc Except for the occasional open-source project where the case materials contains links that point into a domain owned by one of the community members and served by an overworked i486 in his basement. The classification of volatile then applies to more than the interfaces. Approving cases in that state is a bad idea. --Boundary_(ID_EMCd1p26MvZuY/qrvLx/fQ) Content-type: text/x-vcard; name=Terrence.Miller.vcf; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=Terrence.Miller.vcf begin:vcard fn:Terrence Miller n:Miller;Terrence adr:16 Network Circle;;UMPK-303;Menlo Park,;CA;94025;USA email;internet:terrence.miller@sun.com tel;work:650-786-9192 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard --Boundary_(ID_EMCd1p26MvZuY/qrvLx/fQ)-- From sacadmin Wed Apr 2 17:31:24 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m330VNO2025845 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m330VGKT020323 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc@sun.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 01:31:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYQ0010P444L800@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYQ00E6E443L7C0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m330VFW6004669 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYQ008013W2OV00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from tom.childers@sun.com) for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.5] ([76.191.223.250]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYQ005OB43RSR20@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for lsarc@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:28:27 -0700 From: Tom Childers Subject: Re: Opinion for review LSARC/2007/370 In-reply-to: <47F15A19.3060700@sun.com> Sender: Thomas.Childers@sun.com To: lsarc@sun.com Cc: Rahul Shah Message-id: <1892109B-C856-4EE6-9263-121876521626@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <47E7FDB4.9050703@sun.com> <47E8241A.7010101@sun.com> <4053A38F-3F11-4878-8F24-0FDDFD802C1C@sun.com> <47E82930.6030105@sun.com> <47E94A68.3070607@sun.com> <47E96980.5000704@sun.com> <47E97F41.1010708@sun.com> <47EC43DC.5010304@sun.com> <47EDAAFD.5030800@sun.com> <87C98F87-D32F-4FE9-BCA4-21D380FAEF1C@sun.com> <47F15A19.3060700@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 5049 LSARC, Since there have been no further comments, and the timer expired yesterday, I'm asking Rahul to go ahead and send this out to sac-review. -tdc On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Rahul Shah wrote: > Hi, > The updated opinion is attached. The html version is available at > http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html . Please review it > and provide comments. > > Thanks, > Rahul > > Tom Childers wrote: >> I don't see any reason for linking outside of SAC. The IF tables >> are always in the case materials, somewhere. >> -tdc >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2008, at 7:35 PM, Terrence Miller wrote: >>> IMO the key issue is not the format of the opinion but rather the >>> stability of the information. Links that >>> point outside the SAC archives are a problem. >>>> >>>> Tom Childers wrote: >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> I've always found a link to the IF tables works fine in an >>>>> opinion. Obviously, this is a basic difference between the way >>>>> we operated in WSARC and LSARC. Personally, I can never rely >>>>> on an opinion to find interfaces. For one thing, most of our >>>>> cases don't even have opinions :-) >>> >> > > sun > microsystems Systems Architecture Committee > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > Subject: NetBeans 6.0.1 Core IDE > Submitted by: Rahul Shah > File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html > Date: March 18, 2008 > Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri > Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer > Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com > > > 1. Summary > > NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on the > NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide > essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support > developing in Java (J2SE platform) and other languages. Prior cases > for NetBeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/2006/275 . > > 2. Decision & Precedence Information > > The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. > > The project may be delivered in a major NetBeans Consolidation > release. See section 4.3 for details. > > As per the precedence in WSARC(for example WSARC 2004/014 (approved > by WSARC in August 2004), WSARC 2005/635 (approved by WSARC in > January 2006), and LSARC 2007/427 (approved by LSARC in February > 2008)) this opinion just includes the link to Interface tables in > Commitment materials. > > 3. Interfaces > > See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/ > 2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the commitment > review materials for the current interfaces tables. > > 4. Opinion > > > This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the > meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and one > member not participating in the vote. > > 4.1 Rely on NetBeans review process > > LSARC is relying on the NetBeans open source development process to > identify product architectural issues, and there was little > discussion on the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. > > 4.2 Why full case > > The project team should consider submitting cases like these as > fast-tracks. > > 4.3 Reviewed as a Major Release > > Major changes to interfaces were reviewed and approved in this case > because it is the first review of the NetBeans 6.0 major release. > The project was initially requested to be delivered as major release > (6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. So this > case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. > > 4.4 Interface tables in Opinion > > There was a discussion about including Interface tables in this > opinion document(please see mail file for details). WSARC has > previously omitted Interface tables in Opinions, as interfaces in > both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) > prone to errors. LSARC will accept opinions with a link to the > interfaces tables in the case materials, in lieu of a copy of the > tables. > > 5. Minority Opinion(s) > > None. > > 6. Advisory Information > > > 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking > interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not > necessary for reviews. > > 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be > fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only > interfaces that have changed since the last case. > > 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before product > release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped months before > the commitment review. > > 7. Appendices > > 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required > > None. > > 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised > > None. > > 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material > > Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case > directory (LSARC/2007/370). > > Functional Specification > File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html > mail log > File: ./mail > From sac-owner Wed Apr 2 17:49:27 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m330nQBi025951 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m330nKCe021720 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:sac-review@sun.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:49:25 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0JYQ008074Y9U200@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for sac-review@sun.com (ORCPT sac-review@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:49:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JYQ00D4C4Y833E0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for sac-review@sun.com (ORCPT sac-review@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:49:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m330nKQn011777 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:49:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0JYQ00C014XDDY00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Rahul.Shah@Sun.COM) for sac-review@sun.com (ORCPT sac-review@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:49:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.18.126.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0JYQ00C0B4Y88WF0@mail-amer.sun.com> for sac-review@sun.com (ORCPT sac-review@sun.com); Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:49:20 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:52:16 -0700 From: Rahul Shah Subject: Opinion for review: LSARC/2007/370 NetBeans 6.0.1 Core IDE Sender: Rahul.Shah@sun.com To: sac-review@sun.com Message-id: <47F42A40.7010707@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ag05Z9nMQQhmWWNwwQDxPQ)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Status: RO Content-Length: 4252 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ag05Z9nMQQhmWWNwwQDxPQ) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Please review the opinion and provide any comments by 4/10/2008. The html version is also available at http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html . Thanks, Rahul --Boundary_(ID_ag05Z9nMQQhmWWNwwQDxPQ) Content-type: text/plain; name=netbeans_opinion.txt Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline; filename=netbeans_opinion.txt sun microsystems Systems Architecture Committee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: NetBeans 6.0.1 Core IDE Submitted by: Rahul Shah File: LSARC/2007/370/opinion.html Date: March 18, 2008 Committee: Tom Childers(opinion written by Rahul Shah), Jyri Virkki, Lloyd Chambers, Abstain: John Fischer Product Approval Committee: Tools Pac, javatools-pac@sun.com 1. Summary NetBeans Core IDE is a set of modules written in Java based on the NetBeans Platform application framework. The modules provide essential functionality for an IDE tool needed to support developing in Java (J2SE platform) and other languages. Prior cases for NetBeans core IDE are WSARC/2007/123 and WSARC/2006/275 . 2. Decision & Precedence Information The project is approved as specified in reference [1]. The project may be delivered in a major NetBeans Consolidation release. See section 4.3 for details. As per the precedence in WSARC(for example WSARC 2004/014 (approved by WSARC in August 2004), WSARC 2005/635 (approved by WSARC in January 2006), and LSARC 2007/427 (approved by LSARC in February 2008)) this opinion just includes the link to Interface tables in Commitment materials. 3. Interfaces See the Functional specification document, http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2007/370/commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html in the commitment review materials for the current interfaces tables. 4. Opinion This case is approved. Five LSARC members were present in the meeting with three members approving, one member abstaining and one member not participating in the vote. 4.1 Rely on NetBeans review process LSARC is relying on the NetBeans open source development process to identify product architectural issues, and there was little discussion on the case materials, which seem quite straightforward. 4.2 Why full case The project team should consider submitting cases like these as fast-tracks. 4.3 Reviewed as a Major Release Major changes to interfaces were reviewed and approved in this case because it is the first review of the NetBeans 6.0 major release. The project was initially requested to be delivered as major release(6.0) but the commitment was scheduled well after release. So this case was converted to 6.0.1(micro) micro release. 4.4 Interface tables in Opinion There was a discussion about including Interface tables in this opinion document(please see mail file for details). WSARC has previously omitted Interface tables in Opinions, as interfaces in both the case materials and the opinion are (1) redundant, and (2) prone to errors. LSARC will accept opinions with a link to the interfaces tables in the case materials, in lieu of a copy of the tables. 5. Minority Opinion(s) None. 6. Advisory Information 1. LSARC wishes to support the open source process by tracking interfaces and installation issues. Detailed Javadoc is not necessary for reviews. 2. Project team is advised that future cases like this should be fast-tracks, with the new Interface Taxonomy, listing only interfaces that have changed since the last case. 3. Project team is advised to submit materials well before product release. This case was originally 6.0, which shipped months before the commitment review. 7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix A: Technical Changes Required None. 7.2 Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised None. 7.3 Appendix C: Reference Material Unless otherwise stated, path names are relative to the case directory (LSARC/2007/370). Functional Specification File: ./commitment.materials/FuncSpec.html mail log File: ./mail --Boundary_(ID_ag05Z9nMQQhmWWNwwQDxPQ)--