[openfabrics-ewg] Getting EWG off to a rapid and positive start

[Matt Leininger]

On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:35 -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> Hello -
> 
> I'll be PathScale's engineering and testing representative on the EWG.
> 
> I would suggest that we start by clarifying the goals of the EWG
> process, so that everyone is in sync.

  We can have a telecon next week to go over details.
> 
> My principal interest is in ensuring that there is no duplicated or
> wasted effort between the 1.0 process and the EWG process, and that each
> can proceed at its own appropriate pace with maximal cooperation between
> the two.

  That's the general idea.  :)
> 
> What I believe is a good way to achieve this is as follows.
> 
> Somebody needs to articulate the goals of the EWG process, and the
> timeline in which it will take place.  Here are some suggestions I have.
> 
>       * The existence of EWG should be made public on openib-general,
>         and it must be made clear that there is cooperation, not
>         duplication, between the 1.0 and EWG processes.
>       * Which software components are included?
>       * Which hardware components are intended to work?
>       * Which distros are targeted?
>       * What is the test matrix?
>       * What documentation will be written up for customers?
>       * How long is the support window?
>       * What's the policy with respect to switching to the official 1.0
>         and subsequent releases?
> 
> To get the testing and defect fixing balls rolling as quickly as
> possible, EWG contributors ought to use the 1.0 release candidate tree
> at https://openib.org/svn/gen2/branches/1.0/ as its initial basis for
> source code to build and test.  You can download source tarballs and
> some RPM packages from http://openib.red-bean.com/
> 
> It's fine with me if EWG branches from 1.0 so that it can proceed at its
> own pace.  However, if this happens, there must be frequent merges
> between the two trees, because clearly everything that happens in one
> branch ought to be beneficial to the other.

   The idea is to combine EWG and the current 1.0 process.  We want one
hardened stack.  
> 
> The mechanism that EWG uses to track defects should be OpenIB Bugzilla.
> I believe it's already configured in an appropriate manner.  If not, I
> will be happy to make any needed changes, or ask our colleagues at
> Sandia to help out.

  Yes, this was part of the EWG proposal.  

  Thanks,

	- Matt

> 
> 	<b
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openfabrics-ewg mailing list
> openfabrics-ewg at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openfabrics-ewg
>