11:33 >>> pjuvara!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/session
11:33 ChanServ sets +v pjuvara
11:33 <+pjuvara> Hi guys
11:34 <+iciordia> Hi
11:34 <+xxDaViDxx> Ave
11:34 <+pjuvara> sorry I am a bit late
11:34 >>> mirurita!n=openbrav@83.230.226.52
11:35 <+pjuvara> Should we start the product development team meeting?
11:35 <+iciordia> Sure
11:35 <+pjuvara> This is the first time that we do this meeting via IRC so let's see how it goes.
11:35 <+pjuvara> Everybody in the community is welcome to participate.
11:35 <+pjuvara> The agenda today is:
11:35 <+pjuvara> 1) Status of ERP production releases 2) Status of ERP 2.50 3) Status of POS 4) Q&A
11:36 <+pjuvara> Let's start with status of production releases.
11:36 <+pjuvara> We currently have 68 open defects affecting production releases. This is an improvement of 8 defects compared to last week and it is great news. We are not only able to keep up with the incoming flow but we are able to reduce it as well.
11:36 <+pjuvara> Good job.
11:36 <+pjuvara> The break down is:
11:37 <+pjuvara> 1 critical (same as last week)
11:37 <+pjuvara> 16 major (+2)
11:37 <+pjuvara> 44 minor (-8)
11:37 <+pjuvara> 7 trivial (-2)
11:37 <+pjuvara> Wanting to be critical, the critical defect 7493 (https://issues.openbravo.com/view.php?id=7493) has not been updated for a week.
11:38 <+pjuvara> The defect is assigned to alostale. Asier: can you please comment?
11:38 < alostale> yes
11:38 < alostale> I think that one shouldn't be critical
11:39 <+pjuvara> I agree. It is for support of Glassfish
11:39 <+iciordia> Who should take care of this?
11:39 <+iciordia> I mean, is Asier allowed to change the severity/priority?
11:39 < alostale> I can do it (apply the patch) but not test it in glassfish
11:39 <+pjuvara> Well... to begin with, if we agree that it is not critical, we should do it.
11:40 < psarobe> hi
11:40 >>> jayakumar121!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/session
11:40 <+pjuvara> I mean we should downgrade the priority and be happy with that. In addition, if Asier can fix it, the better.
11:40 < alostale> ok, i'll downgrade
11:40 < iarwain> For me the problem it's not that it does not work for Glassfish. But that without th<t fix we don't comply with the Servlet standards.
11:41 <+pjuvara> That said, I am a bit confused. The user who logged it sent me a thank you email for having address this issue so fast...
11:41 < alostale> iarwain, agree but it works in tomcat
11:42 >>> vinothbabu!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/session
11:42 <+pjuvara> OK. So actions decided: 1) downgrade severity 2) when we have time, fix the issue so that it complies with the servlet standards and test in tomcat for regressions.
11:42 < alostale> ok
11:42 <+pjuvara> Moving to ERP 2.50 status...
11:42 <+iciordia> Paolo: there should be a responsible for setting severity/priority (I guess triage team), they should review all new bugs reported
11:43 <+pjuvara> As you have seen in the openbravo-development list last Friday, we have relaxed the exit criteria in order to be able to freeze this week.
11:43 < jayakumar121!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/session []
11:43 >>> jayakumar121!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/session
11:43 <+pjuvara> iciordia: yes, it is the role of the triage team to verify that severity is been reported according to our guidelines and the set the priority accordingly.
11:44 <+iciordia> oks
11:44 < pnuding> so if in doubt they should be the point of contact?
11:44 <+pjuvara> Just as a reminder, the guidelines for severity is published on the wiki
11:44 >>> nserrano!n=nserrano@156.112.218.87.dynamic.jazztel.es
11:44 <+pjuvara> yes, in case of doubt they should be the point of contact.
11:44 < psarobe> we do all of that, thanks
11:45 < cyberjorge> do we have localization for the Philippines in 2.5?
11:45 <+pjuvara> The guidelines are published at: http://wiki.openbravo.com/wiki/Bug_Reporting_Guidelines
11:45 <+pjuvara> cyberjorge: please hold on a second. I'll return to your question in a minute.
11:45 < cyberjorge> thanks
11:46 < rafaroda!n=openbrav@156.112.218.87.dynamic.jazztel.es []
11:46 <+pjuvara> In general the reporter is responsible for setting the priority and we should not touch it but if it is obviously not compliant with the guidelines, the triage team should change it.
11:46 >>> rafaroda!n=openbrav@156.112.218.87.dynamic.jazztel.es
11:46 < jmas> cyberjorge: there was an effort (http://wiki.openbravo.com/wiki/Localization_Projects#Philippines) but it has no produced deliverables and it is probably abandon.
11:47 <+pjuvara> cyberjorge: there is nothing new with regards to the Philippines localization in 2.50.
11:48 >>> Arunkumar!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-dfd4f727a6a9fd22
11:48 < psarobe> triagge team review every tuesday the new open bugs in mantis
11:48 < cyberjorge> i know, i've been waiting for the restarting of the effort
11:48 <+pjuvara> Yes, it appears that the community localization has not made much progress in the Philippines. If you are interested in restarting that project, let us know.
11:48 < psarobe> there are still new open bugs before the cut (saturday 14th)
11:48 >>> Suresh!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-934b4494d1b3822d
11:48 < cyberjorge> what does the localization entail?
11:49 <+iciordia> All, I propose to follow the agenda described by pjuvara, if not it is going to be a mess
11:49 < pnuding!n=pnuding@89.131.145.227 []
11:49 >>> pnuding!n=pnuding@89.131.145.227
11:49 <+pjuvara> iciordia: OK. cyberjorge: I will follow up with you later. Sorry.
11:50 >>> jarekwozniak1!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
11:50 < jarekwozniak!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
11:50 <+pjuvara> Let's go back to ERP 2.50 status.
11:50 < cyberjorge> thanks pjuvara
11:50 <+pjuvara> As you have seen last Friday, we have relaxed the exit criteria in order to be able to freeze this week.
11:50 <+pjuvara> The new exit criteria is:
11:50 <+pjuvara> * Defects logged up to Feb 13th: 0 critical and major defect, less than 100 minor and trivial
11:51 <+pjuvara> * Defects logged after Feb 13th: 0 defects with urgent priority
11:51 <+pjuvara> * QA completed
11:51 <+pjuvara> * Upgrader ready
11:51 <+pjuvara> In terms of defects, we are doing OK.
11:51 <+pjuvara> As of last night we had a total of 151 defects to address (so, really 51 defects to go), with the following breakdown:
11:51 >>> jarekwozniak!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
11:52 <+pjuvara> * 4 critical
11:52 <+pjuvara> * 33 major
11:52 <+pjuvara> * 103 minor
11:52 <+pjuvara> * 11 trivial
11:52 <+pjuvara> Between Monday and Tuesday, we resolved about 30 defects, so with 3 days left we have a good chance of making it but we need to accelerate.
11:52 >>> plujan!i=d562b28f@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-d281881a68268e54
11:52 <+iciordia> pjuvara, does it make sense to prioritize minor/trivial bugs reported before Feb 13th over major ones reported later?
11:53 >>> PMagninOB!n=pma@83.230.226.52
11:53 <+pjuvara> Let's try to close the 4 critical and 33 major logged up to Feb 13th and then let's take a stock of where we are.
11:53 <+iciordia> sure, that's makes sense
11:53 <+pjuvara> We can exchange some minor for some major if appropriate.
11:53 <+iciordia> oks
11:54 <+pjuvara> The key point is: we need to accelerate.
11:54 < psarobe> what about the ones that are supposed to be resolved and QA reopen?
11:54 <+pjuvara> Please stay focused on this and make one last push to break through.
11:54 < alinot> Related to the exit criteria, any commitment related to documentation?
11:54 <+pjuvara> Those need to be looked at on a one by one basis.
11:54 <+iciordia> Can we do a summary by scrum teams?
11:54 < psarobe> ok
11:55 <+pjuvara> alinot: not by beta, but by production yes.
11:55 >>> jarekwozniak2!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
11:55 <+pjuvara> iciordia: OK. Let me query: a second.
11:55 <+pjuvara> Actually...
11:56 <+pjuvara> can each scrum team self declare its status?
11:56 <+iciordia> Asier, can you report platform1?
11:56 < alostale> ok
11:57 >>> jarekwozniak3!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
11:57 < alostale> platform 1: 40 open
11:57 < alostale> 2 critical
11:57 < alostale> 9 major
11:58 <+pjuvara> Thanks. Platform 2. Stefan?
11:58 < cyberjorge!n=chatzill@116.50.175.27 ["ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.4/2008102920]"]
11:58 < huehner> pjuvara: nedd one moment
11:58 <+iciordia> alostale: upgrader? demo data?
11:59 < pnuding> ok, can community support go in the meantime? Rafa?
11:59 <+pjuvara> While Stefan queries, could Localization, Release Management and Community Support please prepare their status?
11:59 < alostale> upgrader is now being tested by qa
11:59 < rafaroda> pjuvara: calculating, one sec please
11:59 < amedio> Localization team: 6 major - 1 minor
11:59 < awolski> Platform 2: 32 bugs remaining, 4 major.
11:59 < amedio> 2 major bugs are quite difficult to reproduce
12:00 < awolski> Completed 14 bugs in this sprint.
12:00 < iarwain> RM status: 0 issues.
12:00 < amedio> we are trying to reproduce an track them
12:00 <+iciordia> Each team should flag if they think they can not finish by next Friday
12:00 <+pjuvara> amedio: what are the numbers?
12:00 < amedio> 0007404 - 0007433
12:01 < amedio> we will try to reproduce them
12:01 < amedio> but still couldn't
12:02 <+pjuvara> OK. I understand that 7404 only reproduces on 2.23 so it is not relevant for 2.50. 7433: can plujan reproduce it?
12:03 < amedio> vixtor and plujan are now discussing the issue
12:03 <+pjuvara> Besides this, does everybody feel that they can finish by Friday?
12:04 <+pjuvara> If not, please flag it as Ismael is requesting.
12:04 < rafaroda> Community Support team: 61 which critical 1 and 20 major
12:04 < girish12!i=7371420f@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-475c40b533ce6060 ["http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client"]
12:04 < plujan> About 7433, we should discuss with victor about it
12:04 <+iciordia> For cases like 7404 I think that the reporter should share his/her environment to be able to trace the problem, if not it is impossible
12:04 <+pjuvara> iciordia: agree.
12:05 < huehner> pjuvara: unknown for two major ones, one open for discussion with ismael (5625), on is obn pending feedback (7572)
12:05 < amedio> even sharing the environment is quite complex to know why as if you launch the process again the error doesn't remain
12:05 <+pjuvara> Also 2.23 is not a supported release (there is no OBN on that) so we can only fix things on a best effort basis.
12:05 < amedio> ok
12:05 <+iciordia> Then we should reject the bug?
12:05 < huehner> pjuvara: fisish by friday per team means? resolve major ones, what about number of minors?
12:06 <+pjuvara> huehner: I mean both.
12:07 <+pjuvara> We have 4 active teams: if each team reaches less than 25 minor and trivial, we are golden.
12:07 < jarekwozniak1!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:07 >>> jwozniak!n=openbrav@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
12:07 < jwozniak!n=openbrav@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Remote closed the connection]
12:07 < amedio> then issues should be reassigned
12:07 <+pjuvara> OK. What about QA? Could psarobe comment?
12:07 < amedio> as my team has 7 pending
12:08 < psarobe> right now we are testing financail
12:08 < huehner> pjuvara: platform 2: <= 25 by friday should be ok, the two major knoes flagged above unknown
12:08 < psarobe> and the upgrade of 2.50
12:08 <+pjuvara> amedio: I assume that you meant that your team can take more. Great!
12:09 < psarobe> platform just give us the 240 intance updated
12:09 < amedio> we will have to descope things from sprint
12:09 < jarekwozniak!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:09 < amedio> ;(
12:10 < psarobe> we should be able to finish the financial testing before friday if no major bugs are found
12:10 < psarobe> and the functionanl testing of the 240 updated intance
12:10 <+pjuvara> amedio: focus on your sprint. If another team requests help, we will assign defects to you and descope things from the sprint but for now focus on what is on your plate. Thanks!
12:10 < amedio> cool
12:11 <+pjuvara> amedio: also, given that financial testing is going on, more issues might be coming your way :(
12:11 < amedio> we hope not
12:11 < amedio> :D
12:11 <+iciordia> It seems to me that all teams are at high risk with the current exit criteria
12:12 < amedio> if new bugs are comming, shall we fix them??
12:12 < amedio> it is supposed that new bugs from 14th are not taken into account
12:12 < jarekwozniak2!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:13 <+pjuvara> amedio: if new bugs are coming *and* QA sets them to priority urgent, yes please: fix them; otherwise not.
12:13 >>> mib_55q0pz!i=d562b28f@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-dde44d2b1fded750
12:13 < amedio> ok
12:13 < amedio> undestood
12:13 <+pjuvara> iciordia: the risk is indeed high; proposals?
12:14 <+iciordia> Imo we should focus on critical/major bugs, and exit criteria should be 0 critical/major before feb 13th, and not show stoppers
12:14 < jarekwozniak3!n=jwozniak@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:14 <+iciordia> So if on Friday we have 120 minor/trivial open bugs, I would publish
12:15 < mtaal!n=mtaal@ip-183-13-149-91.dialup.ice.no [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:15 >>> ifdj!n=openbrav@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
12:15 < ifdj!n=openbrav@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com [Remote closed the connection]
12:15 < iarwain> it dependes if the exist criteria is baed on time or in quality...
12:15 < iarwain> *exit
12:15 <+iciordia> Imo it should be based on time for a given quality :-)
12:15 >>> ujsdsjfn!n=openbrav@83.173.190.248.dyn.user.ono.com
12:16 < iarwain> what that does mean? :)
12:16 < xeraf> It would be easier to publish the Beta today. If we are going to continue changing the exit criteria...
12:16 <+pjuvara> Well, the exit criteria needs to be based on quality but time is also important so it is a compromise. The exit criteria that we had last week was simply
12:16 <+pjuvara> unreachable.
12:16 <+pjuvara> We would have been in alpha for ever.
12:17 <+pjuvara> The current exit criteria is based on quality but because it has a cut off (after 12 weeks of alpha) it is a known quantity + a handful of exceptions.
12:17 <+pjuvara> We should aim at reaching at least that.
12:17 < azabaleta> why is not acceptable 1 extra month delay it it means that the beta is quite stable?
12:17 < xeraf> And what would that mean (alpha forever)? That the quality is not yet good enough.
12:18 <+pjuvara> If on Friday we cannot, then we will see where we are and take a decision. If it is a few extra days, we can deal with that. If it does not converge, then we have a problem.
12:19 <+pjuvara> xeraf: not necessarily. The quality might be good enough but we might still be getting a lot of issues coming in and not be able to solve them.
12:19 ~ ujsdsjfn is now jarekwozniak
12:19 <+iciordia> I disagree that a fixed number of minor/trivial open bugs is a fair metric of quality
12:20 < xeraf> What do you think is a fair metric of quality?
12:20 <+iciordia> There are very high quality products with thousands of minor/trivial bugs...
12:20 < plujan> if former exit criteria was not a quality metric, why we based release on it?
12:21 < plujan> I agree with xeraf, we can simply publish today
12:22 <+pjuvara> Guys: I think this discussion is not productive. The measure of quality is somewhat an arbitrary goal. The ones that we had last week was decided about a year ago without giving much thought.
12:22 <+iciordia> I don't because there are show stoppers (critical/major bugs) that really decrease quality of the product
12:22 <+pjuvara> The practice proved that it was not practical and we are changing it to something that addresses the problem that we faced. I think we are doing the right thing but we can discuss forever what could be a good metric.
12:23 < Suresh!i=7c7c37c7@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-934b4494d1b3822d ["http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client"]
12:23 <+pjuvara> So, please, let's stick the the ones that we proposed above. It gives a good provision for a) cleaning the backlog of old stuff; b) giving QA the flexibility to request fixes for as many showstoppers the feel are needed.
12:23 < xeraf> You may think is arbitrary. But I think we do need an objective way of deciding when we publish Beta and when not. The metric may be somewhat arbitrary but we should stick to it.
12:24 <+xxDaViDxx> I think change the metric every time we need to change it based on time is like cheating
12:24 < pnuding> I think it can make sense to modify quality criteria under given circumstances
12:25 < pnuding> we just have to be careful about it
12:25 < pnuding> if you are very thirsty, you might have different criteria for water quality than when you are not
12:26 <+pjuvara> Any other opinion on the topic?
12:26 <+xxDaViDxx> pnuding then we should think why are so thirsty
12:26 <+iciordia> I propose to open a thread discussion about this topic, to be able to go ahead
12:26 >>> jvilconasa!n=JaimeV@137.pool85-54-200.dynamic.orange.es
12:27 <+pjuvara> OK. Let's go ahead.
12:27 < alinot> I personally prefer having a better "beta" one week later.
12:27 >>> nnadark!n=openbrav@143.Red-213-98-178.staticIP.rima-tde.net
12:27 <+pjuvara> Can we get a status on the upgrader?
12:27 >>> mib_4tte1w!i=58072624@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-a4b8ac0645f37710
12:28 < alostale> we have a customized 2.40 upgraded to 2.50
12:28 < alostale> and now qa is testing it
12:28 < psarobe> from QA, platform has just given the 250 version to start testing
12:28 <+pjuvara> Cool. Thanks.
12:28 < psarobe> the testing woulb be from a functional perspective
12:28 < psarobe> ensure what it works in 240 works in 250
12:28 < mib_4tte1w!i=58072624@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-a4b8ac0645f37710 []
12:29 <+iciordia> Also we will test that the model is complete, and that there is no data loss
12:30 <+pjuvara> Great.
12:30 < psarobe> AMO should test the model and data loss
12:30 < psarobe> right?
12:30 <+iciordia> yes
12:30 < MarvinTM> ok
12:30 < psarobe> and what about his pendings bugs?
12:31 <+iciordia> we will manage to do both
12:31 <+pjuvara> Those too.
12:31 <+iciordia> yes
12:31 < MarvinTM> ok :)
12:31 < plujan> will upgraders testing be ready for this friday?
12:31 < psarobe> yes
12:31 < psarobe> i hope
12:31 < plujan> cool
12:32 <+pjuvara> OK. Next topic.
12:32 <+iciordia> Also, demo data has been prepared to be included in openbravo distro's
12:33 <+pjuvara> Ah I had forgot to ask about that. Thanks, that's great.
12:33 < iarwain> Yes. RM has now the demodata. The integration test into the appliances has not been done yet.
12:33 < iarwain> Will be this week.
12:33 <+ pjuvara> iarwain: thanks.
12:34 <+pjuvara> Next topic: POS. Adrian can you please write about it?
12:34 < adrianromero> Hello. Yes
12:34 < adrianromero> These are the news and status of the development of Openbravo POS.
12:34 < adrianromero> Problably most of this status is already known but I am going to repeat it again to be sure that everybody knows it
12:34 < adrianromero> The release of Openbravo POS 2.30 has been delayed because of priority changes and the new release dates has been published
12:34 < adrianromero> http://wiki.openbravo.com/wiki/Openbravo_POS_roadmap#Openbravo_POS_2.30_.28February_2009.29
12:35 < adrianromero> The development of all the important features of this release like the new integration architecture between Openbravo POS and Openbravo ERP, the PDA module for restaurants and the product attributes support is already finish, and we expect to release on time.
12:35 < adrianromero> The next release we plan to upgrade the licence of Openbravo POS from GPL v2 to GPL v3. This is a natural move that will not change the commitment of Openbravo with all the Openbravo POS community.
12:36 < adrianromero> Related to the status for issues. This is the chart for the issues pending and fixes the last week
12:36 < adrianromero> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pWEbJ3VuNci0-7pcXvhrLSQ&oid=1&output=image
12:36 < adrianromero> Just to say that the issues number stays low.
12:36 < adrianromero> And related to the status of support to the community in the forums, this is the chart for the last week
12:36 < adrianromero> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pWEbJ3VuNci0-7pcXvhrLSQ&oid=5&output=image
12:37 < jvilconasa!n=JaimeV@137.pool85-54-200.dynamic.orange.es ["Saliendo"]
12:37 < adrianromero> The total of messages has increased a litte bit, and the ratio of messages posted by the Openbravo POS team remains stable.
12:37 < adrianromero> And nothing else from the Openbravo POS team.
12:37 < adrianromero> Questions?
12:37 <+pjuvara> Thanks, Adrian.
12:38 <+pjuvara> This concludes the list of prepared topics. Any question?
12:39 < mib_55q0pz!i=d562b28f@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-dde44d2b1fded750 []
12:39 < azabaleta> So we all know, finally what will be the exit criteria for the 2.50 Beta? Sorry but I finally didnt understand.
12:39 <+xxDaViDxx> just one suggestion... if there is this huge quantity of bugs, I would stay focused on that next week too in order to not have the same problem when we want to froze production
12:40 <+iciordia> All, I've created in Open Discussion forum a thread to discuss the exit criteria: https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=3019632&forum_id=549510
12:41 <+pjuvara> iciordia: thanks.