← Revision 1 as of 2007-11-06 09:53:10 →
Size: 382
Comment:
|
Size: 1054
Comment:
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 5: | Line 5: |
* Testing as a task – assign different parts of Cytoscape to developers for testing - offline |
* Testing as a task – assign different parts of Cytoscape to developers for testing - offline. How can we get more developers and users involved in testing. * No 2.7 will be released (decision could be revisited), but we will work on 2.6 and add documentation, bug fixes, small features, new core plugins in maintenance releases. Goal: smooth over most of the workflows. |
Line 12: | Line 13: |
* Plugin developers have issues with too frequent releases * Feature suggestion from Carlo: action tracing - how did I get to this result? * Smoothing workflows may take a while to do * Break * 3.0 overview * Cytoscape problems - things that the RFCs address * People would like to have a stable plugin API and also access to internal classes * Going through all of the RFCs |
Day 1 notes
Decisions:
- Cytoscape release: Mid jan, feb.1 as goal for release
- Testing as a task – assign different parts of Cytoscape to developers for testing - offline. How can we get more developers and users involved in testing.
- No 2.7 will be released (decision could be revisited), but we will work on 2.6 and add documentation, bug fixes, small features, new core plugins in maintenance releases. Goal: smooth over most of the workflows.
Discussion threads:
- Introductions (everyone)
- Cytoscape 2.6 development status update
- Testing - how to increase coverage and get better unit tests
- Should we have a 2.7 release?
- Plugin developers have issues with too frequent releases
- Feature suggestion from Carlo: action tracing - how did I get to this result?
- Smoothing workflows may take a while to do
- Break
- 3.0 overview
- Cytoscape problems - things that the RFCs address
- People would like to have a stable plugin API and also access to internal classes
- Going through all of the RFCs