Difference between revisions of "Notes20090105"

Revision as of 20:44, 5 January 2009

This is the meeting agenda/notes for the Meeting held on 2009-01-05.

Date and Time: 2009-01-05 20:00 UTC

• Next meeting date
  • February 2nd
• Release issues
  • Upcoming releases
  • 5.3.3 - Robert?
    • Robert agreed. "it's just running a few scripts, right? how hard can it be?"
    • roughly end-of-feb time-frame with 2-3 weeks for pre1-pre2 and 2-3 for rc1-rc2
  • 5.5 - Wes
    • Will start right after 5.3.3 is out the door. Likely early March.
• Coding issues
  • bug bashing report
    • dts12 will run another on bugs this time (as opposed to patches)
    • will shoot for Feb 16th
    • might want someone else to take over after this next one
  • autoconf rehash/rework
    • dtls12 hasn't done anything recently about it
    • wes had issues getting autoconf to force rebuild from the new files
    • general agreement that it's both better (well done Dave) and sufficient for 5.5
  • autoconf 2.63
    • tanders installed it into trunk before the holidays, so it's in place now
  • discussion surrounding automake
    • Wes will send note to -admins asking for people who want to stand up as 'its good and we should do it' representatives
  • engineid discovery mechanism
    • No one wanted to hold discussion about it
    • Future additions to the agenda about it welcome, but otherwise discussion dropped
  • coverity
    • Wes delivers long report:

[12:38] <hardaker> coverity:
[12:39] <hardaker> I attended a conference call in december? about it.
[12:39] <hardaker> they're making lots of changes.
[12:39] <hardaker> they have a self-build system that lets you submit results to scan from any OS (pretty much)
[12:39] <hardaker> I asked lots of questions and it was a good conference call.
[12:39] <hardaker> that being said, since then:
[12:40] <hardaker> 1) I asked for a new project (unrelated to net-snmp) to be added and they said they would.  So I sent the mail they  requested and got no response.
[12:40] <hardaker> 2) I submitted a self-build on my F9 system per their instructions and it didn't appear in their runs system.
[12:40] <hardaker> 3) I sent them mail asking for help about where my self-build results were supposed to be seen and got no response.  again.
[12:40] <hardaker> they were sure that their responsiveness was improving, but I haven't seen signs of it.
[12:41] <hardaker> I suspect I just thought of a potential issue for #2 today that may have been the problem and I'll try submitting a new  build later this week to see if I can correct it.
[12:41] <hardaker> beyond that, this is just a report and I have no discussion items per say.

• Round Table