Event details


  1. Roll Call
  2. Scribe nomination
  3. Review minutes of previous meeting at

  4. Change Management draft spec review
  5. Configuration Management topics
    1. Discuss issue 36
  6. Any other business


Attendees: David Honey (Persistent/IBM), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

Chat transcript from room: oslc-ccm 2017-04-06 GMT-08:00

[07:08] Nick Crossley (IBM): List of attendees: David Honey (Persistent/IBM), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin will scribe

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Review minutes

[07:08] Nick Crossley (IBM):

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Approved

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Action items: Pending to get list of relationships, still pending

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Review issue 36 - notes posted

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): CM: Last time reviewed comments, Jim was going to update spec

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim unable to finish

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Other changes pending related to templates

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Need to decide on how much we should restate core requirements

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Or, just the delta from core?

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Convenient to have everything in one place - core doesn't have equivalent list

[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC): CM structure partly to drive automated test tools

[07:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam Padgett wrote original spec and it hasn't been altered much

[07:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): structurally, anyway

[07:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): CM probably pretty similar to RM - mostly just vocabularies

[07:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): If we could create a single boilerplate then we would publish just the deltas

[07:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No MUSTs in core, so every domain spec pretty much need to indicate what is required

[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): What is repeated is a subset of core anyway - mostly the MUSTs

[07:23] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: don't really care if it is redundant or not - will take more work to check. Different if we're doing 7 or 8 specs however

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Easier to decide what the domain wants if you start with a core list rather than a cm list

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nice if table indicates what is a deviation from core

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Query not in the list of domain specs to bring forward - should add it

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin to raise issue

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick already has some changes, will check in then Jim will make his changes

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Domain specs shapes partially done, will be checking in soon

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick notify team if there are bits we should bring back into the cm spec

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): based on what he is doing in domains

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim has some changes to cm - he will check in asap

[07:32] Nick Crossley (IBM): Other action item for Nick DONE - raise request for IBM's RTC Change Management implementation to be compliant with OSLC Actions 2.0:

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Mainly need to add discoverability of actions

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Are discoverable using a completely different api

[07:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Very difficult to figure that out if you don't know the syntax

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Almost ready for public review - just Nick's stuff blocking now

[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim changes checked in

[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Config management

[07:37] Nick Crossley (IBM):

[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Change sets intended to be minimal - didn't want to constrain too much

[07:39] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not many examples to use as references for change sets

[07:39] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Don't have well defined change set lifecycle or even good model for how to represent multiple change sets and how applied to stream

[07:40] Martin Sarabura (PTC): What are the assumptions about multiple change sets, change set dependencies?

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Spec is silent on these questions

[07:42] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Can a change set be delivered only to one stream, or can it be delivered to more than one?

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): What Nick needs from TC is overall sense for how detailed we want to get

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Life cycle? Dependencies?

[07:44] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Eg., was derived from indicates dependence, do we want to back off even from thhat/

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Can we leverage existing standards? eg., Delta V, MOF, or WVCM

[07:46] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Delta-V and WVCM biased towards file-based (we want resource-based)

[07:46] Nick Crossley (IBM): WVCM - web version control management or something

[07:46] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Delta V focus on distributed development also

[07:46] Jim Amsden (IBM):

[07:47] Nick Crossley (IBM): WVCM was a Java API proposal, back in the Java 4-5 days as I recall

[07:48] Jim Amsden (IBM):

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Action: TC to think about how prescriptive we want to get - or what level of detail we want to discuss - on the subject of change sets

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick feels we need to give change sets more thought before we can resolve issue 36

[07:50] Jim Amsden (IBM): OMG MOF Versioning and Development Lifecycle Specifcation:

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): One possible resolution is to undeprecate oslc:configmutable

[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): oslc_config:mutable

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: MOF versioning does not address ability to difference change sets

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Removed red text from earlier changes

[07:56] Nick Crossley (IBM): No other business

[07:56] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2017.04.06 (last edited 2017-06-01 14:40:01 by ndjc)