S. Digel, 23 Jan 2005
James has advocated that build 7 include another science tools checkout, like build 3. It isn't clear whether the scale of the checkout will be the same in terms of the numbers of reviewers. Ideally, they will be the same people who participated in the first checkout, although I haven't discussed this with Dave Davis (or anyone else) yet. In any case, the reviewers will be recruited during build 6.
In terms of getting new features in the science tools, James points out that build 6 is the last best opportunity before DC2, although builds 8 and 9 will at least allow for picking up the pieces.
Here are what I think should be the priorities for build 6 - as a starting point for discussion at the science tools meeting.
In all areas, I'd vote for cleaning up the JIRA issues, especially those dating to the first science tools checkout. I'd also vote for tracking down any remaining Windows build/test issues.
Likelihood: Tracking down biases, more on binned vs. unbinned, updated exposure calculation via HEALpix (see Toby's presentation)
Pulsar tools: Finishing ephemeris database
GRB tools: I don't know what the priorities should be. Temporal analysis (A7) should be first priority, I think. Realistically, this will not be ready for the science tools checkout. GRB 'triggers' are not part of SAE, of course.
User interface questions: Quality of plots? Export of plots? GUIs? What is reasonable for the build 7 science tools checkout?
Data server at SLAC? Not likely, but I do not think that we will distribute simulated data for the science tools checkout in any case.
Tool renaming: Can we go ahead with this?