Session Start: Mon Apr 28 21:00:01 2008 Session Ident: #twiki_release [21:00] * Now talking in #twiki_release [21:00] * Topic is ' http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/GeorgetownReleaseMeeting2008x04x14' [21:00] * Set by ColasNahaboo on Mon Apr 14 21:45:40 [21:00] Hi there! :) [21:00] Hi all [21:01] or rather Hi few :-( [21:01] * dtolj has joined #twiki_release [21:02] * AcridSaint has joined #twiki_release [21:03] * ArthurClemens_ has joined #twiki_release [21:03] good evening [21:04] did we make the meeting one hour earlier? [21:04] Yes [21:04] Hi Arthur [21:04] hi arthur, dtolj, koen, harlan, kenneth, sven (here?), markus! [21:04] * PeterThoeny_ changes topic to 'http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/GeorgetownReleaseMeeting2008x04x28' [21:05] sven must be asleep at 4 am [21:06] yes, one hour earlier, was announced that way [21:06] same time as marketing meeting last week [21:07] with an international project like twiki it is impossible to find a time that suits all [21:08] dtolj: welcome here at the release meeting [21:08] could you please introduce yourself? [21:09] AcridSaint: welcome, could you please do the same? [21:09] Hello, my name is Dejan and my relation with twiki is new, I have recently started using it for my company and I am liking it. :) [21:10] cool! [21:10] are you a perl programmer? [21:10] Hi Peter, all. I'm Cap, I've just installed twiki and been setting it up for about a week. Just dropped by IRC and to see what was going on. [21:10] well I do know perl and used it in the past but I am not a Monk! [21:10] ok, thanks for stopping by [21:11] Mine is also a corporate setup, I picked twiki to migrate to from DokuWiki [21:11] dtolj: we'd love your contributions, if inclined you can get started with something small, such as a plugin enhancement or a bug fix :-) [21:12] AcridSaint: did you create a script to migrate from dokuwiki? if so, would you consider contributing it back to the community? [21:12] I have used mediawiki in the past but quickly abandon it since it had no support for per page security like twiki does. [21:12] time check: +12 min [21:12] No script yet Peter, I've been working out the details of permissions and layout first. [21:13] I'm not sure how to move the dokuwiki pages yet, but I'm looking at modifying the existing generic migration. [21:13] who is taking minutes, who is facilitating? [21:13] i can facilitate [21:13] I am on the minutes already [21:13] thanks kenneth [21:13] agenda items: [21:13] # 1. Review Urgent Bugs with 4.2.1 scope [21:13] # 2. Feature requests for Georgetown Release [21:13] anything to add? [21:14] 3. New proposal for core team [21:14] * peterthoeny has quit IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) [21:14] we can discuss this showrtly, but i would like to have some time for a proposal [21:15] as part of #1, i'd like us to decide on a date for the 4.2.1 release [21:15] ---++ 1. Review Urgent Bugs with 4.2.1 scope [21:16] (btw, i have a hard stop at +90 min) [21:16] Instead of stepping through another round of bugs that people will NOT fix I'd rather try and understand why this project has come to an absolute ZERO when it comes to supporting the current release. [21:16] http://develop.twiki.org/~twiki4/cgi-bin/view/Bugs/ReleaseBlocker [21:17] The list we have is same as last week + a few new. [21:17] we have 19 bugs listed as release blockers [21:19] Anyone has any suggestion why TWiki as a project is at the lowest level of activity since I joined at the release of Cairo? [21:19] perhaps the individual motivations don't add up [21:20] on lack of bug fixing: i think it boils down to lack of commitment by existing contributors to fix bugs (for whatever reason) and not enough new people joining the project [21:20] how many contributors do you have? [21:21] theoretically we have 20+ with checkin rights to core code, but only a handful are active [21:21] we have many more plugin contributors [21:23] The strange thing is that people are discussing heavity proposals to refactor the core, but noone wants to fix the urgent bugs that prevents 4.2.1 from being released. [21:23] in my mind we should focus on recruiting and mentoring new contributors [21:24] I am interested :) when i have spare time. [21:24] You shall be most welcome [21:24] on current contributors we could consider two bug stomp weeks where only bug fixing is encouraged (e.g. no new features) [21:24] ? [21:25] dtolj: we'd love to get your support! [21:25] I suggest you get contributors together for an online hackathon where you regularly meet and knock out the bugs. [21:25] look at the open bugs, try to fix, attach a patch to the bug topic [21:25] PeterThoeny_: I'll see what I can work on, to see if I am confortable with the code. [21:26] AcridSaint: that is an interesting idea [21:26] can you elaborate? [21:26] You can do this over a weekend or evern a week. [21:26] The idea isn't exactly mine, but the OpenBSD developers do this once every year. [21:26] The only difference is that they meet in person. [21:26] like a bug day I know some other projects do the same. [21:26] and branch off into groups and fix problems in existing code. [21:27] how often are those bug days? weekly? [21:27] If you schedule times for contributors to contribute (for a set period) I think you'll get more activity. [21:27] short term activity that is. [21:27] meet on irc? [21:27] I think so, in your case. [21:28] Once a month or quarterly two-day meetings on IRC perhaps? [21:28] that is an interesting idea worth trying out [21:28] If you put 10 people together for two 8 hour days you can probably fix all of your bugs. [21:29] one problem we have is time difference: europe, australia, usa [21:30] If you do it on a weekend, perhaps you can find at lesat 4-6 hours that everyone can participate, or the most contributors can. [21:30] If people have something to schedule for in advance, they may be more likely to make the time. [21:31] since the majority of active contributors are in europe we could try a saturday during day time, european time [21:31] weekends is most preferable. [21:32] the meet in person idea to fix bugs is also good [21:32] add one day to the dev summit? [21:33] There is a looooong time till the next summit. [21:33] I think that's a good idea, people can get more excited in a room together with like minds. [21:34] Why is it the regular contributors stay away from these biweekly release meetings? [21:36] we can talk one on one with those who do not participate on the "why" [21:36] it is a clear indication that we need to focus on recruiting and mentoring [21:37] THAT I can only agree on. [21:38] i tried to recruit sopan for the core, he is interested but got very busy at work now (he is actually locally here in sunnyvale) [21:38] well, if there's -heavy- mentoring I'll try my hand at a bug ;) [21:39] thanks you cap! [21:39] stop by in #twiki to get help [21:39] when you try fixing a bug [21:39] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/ReadmeFirst has all the pointers to get started [21:40] Cool, I'll have a look at some tonight [21:40] thanks you! :-) [21:41] kenneth, do we have enough urgent bugs fixed to release 4.2.1 even with 19 pending urgent bug fixes? [21:42] Not really. Problem is that some of the fixes made for I18N made new bugs that we cannot live with [21:42] Meaning I would personally not upgrade to 4.2.1 if we released it now. [21:43] ok, then another question: what urgent bugs can we temporarily lower to accelerate 4.2.1? [21:44] Few could be lowered but that also means getting lower quality than we had in 4.1.2 [21:45] Especially if your language is not English or you have users with non english names. [21:45] Sorry for the ignorance, but is there a rigid release schedule? [21:46] We wanted to release 4.2.1 about 6-8 weeks after 4.2.0 was released which was end of March. [21:46] AcridSaint: we release about once a year, with bug fix releases as needed (up to monthly) [21:46] But then suddenly the most active contributors stopped fixing bugs. [21:47] 4.2.0 was released at the end of january [21:47] so there are no feature upgrades until '09 and only bug fixes? [21:47] so we are way behind schedule for 4.2.1 bug fix release [21:47] Yes. That is correct. [21:47] So the broken things in the new release are not net-new bugs? [21:47] the upcoming release is a major 5.0 release, will not happen until 2009 [21:47] Some are. Some were injected by code changed done in 4.2.0 [21:49] Sorry to keep interrupting, trying to get a hold on the situation at hand. [21:49] No problem :-) [21:49] but we should release 4.2.1 soon because there are some urgent bugs, such as inability to use login names in groups [21:50] no problem, fresh blood is good :-) [21:50] time check: +50 min [21:51] ArthurClemens_, gmc, harlan, sven, uebera||: any comments on lack of bug fixing before we move on? [21:51] I don't [21:52] Hm... personally, I'd really like to contribute, but have some deadlines to meet :( Item5539 looks doable, though. [21:52] Harlan. You picked the most difficult bug to look at. Any progress on Item5118? [21:52] markus: any support is greatly appreciated! [21:53] Markus. One urgent bug less is worth a lot. [21:53] Well, I think the release needs to be done minus any fixes that are known to introduce new bugs. As long as release notes make it clear what bugs are still priorities, I don't think anyone suffers. [21:53] kenneth: do you wnat to pick a few bug items or shall we go to the next agenda item? [21:54] Only the question I had for Harlan. [21:56] harlan are you here? [21:56] on the phone with harlan... [21:57] he is several miles away from the computer [21:57] he made some little progress [21:57] * ArthurClemens_ is back from work related things [21:57] difficult to debug [21:58] he will look at it again tonight [21:58] Yes. It is a very hard to fix bug. [21:58] ArthurClemens_: any comments on bug fixing rate? [21:59] yes, things go very slow. But I have been busy with loads of work last weeks [21:59] myself [21:59] so I cannot blame others [21:59] I will try and re-test some of the I18N bugs again but in ISO-8859-1 only. utf-8 was broken already and still is. [22:00] Arthur - you have actually overall been pretty active on 4.2.1 :-) The most active I would say. [22:00] I should have more time coming time [22:00] we have been dependent on a couple of developers [22:00] and that is not a good thing [22:00] So true [22:01] I was hoping the site's redesign would give a positive impulse [22:01] yes, thank you _very much_ arthur for your support, especially in your busy times [22:01] but that is also a large work in itself [22:01] very true on dependency, that is why we need to focus on recruiting and mentoring [22:02] perhaps we need to change the redesign plans a bit [22:02] the site redesign can be split up into phases [22:02] "just do it" instead of planning [22:02] a low hanging fruit phase can be done relatively quickly [22:02] to make it more concrete for the markteting group people as well [22:03] yes, just create a few landing pages in the twiki web and start populating those [22:03] ok, let's move to the next agenda item [22:03] ---++ 2. Feature requests for Georgetown Release [22:04] We have two requests that I have selected for discussion. [22:04] I could have picked more but I think two is what we can handle in one meeting [22:04] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/ProcessAddToHeadAdds [22:06] This one has a talk page with the discussion. In future please don't it makes more trouble having to keep two windows open to read the proposal and the comments. [22:06] The status of the proposal is that Crawford updated the proposal itself. [22:06] also, where is the link to the talk page? [22:07] And Sven who we know cannot be here has clearly voted against it on the topic so we should count his vote as No if we decide to vote. [22:07] THEY ARE KIDDING [22:07] next to the edit buttons?? [22:08] what a mess [22:08] Yes. Not a nice user interface. It was an experiment. Experiments are OK as long as you can accept when it fails. [22:08] This one failed. [22:08] action buttons and navigation mixed [22:09] well, I have to do reading up to the proposal [22:09] I cannot say anything useful now [22:09] i miss the context, but i agree that we need a documented way to add stuff to the head section [22:10] the proposal looks good on first glance [22:10] The principle seems to be to base the ORDER of stuff added to the head based on numbered ranges. [22:11] It is mainly the numbered range detail that Sven is against. [22:11] that looks sensible [22:11] minor detail: tag is an overloaded term [22:11] also "And we've totally lost the ability to define Header elements within templates, as required by the parent" [22:12] i am fixing the proposal s/tag/variable/ where needed [22:12] so, more discussion is needed [22:13] it is your proposal so I am OK to bring it back to Codev for another round. [22:13] There is no urgency. Better to have a good proposal than a fast proposal [22:14] gmc next one is yours [22:14] (waiting for t.o) [22:15] yes, we can wait for a better proposal, or a better motivation [22:15] oh, load is 5.4, checking... [22:15] OK. It loaded. http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiFormInheritance. I bring this proposal forward mainly to get the discussion started again. [22:15] 41.208.137.40 is a bad boy [22:16] ok, now on deny list [22:17] ? [22:17] that one has come up several times [22:17] that IP is now blacklisted [22:17] The only issue with this proposal (TWikiFormInheritance) has been agreeing the syntax. [22:18] How do we move it forward gmc (Koen)? [22:19] gmc? [22:19] Koen is stalled it seems [22:20] Then we cannot do more on that proposal. [22:20] Does anyone have a proposal they want pushed forward at next meeting? [22:21] I like the proposal [22:21] i think the debate is on approach: inheritance vs mashup [22:22] There are two discussions in the topic. One is if it is possible to do the same without the proposal. The other is the syntax (that is my pet argument). [22:22] Sven's example won't cut it I am afraid, using INCLUDES [22:23] That is also my impression. Which is why I mainly think it is down to getting the syntax adjusted so normal users can understand it and use it. [22:23] which MD described as "not for nurses" [22:24] I agree, the proposal is for us [22:24] app makers [22:24] But if a little syntax change can make it work for more people then why insist on a geeky syntax? [22:25] i think we are in agreement here: idea is good, simplify syntax [22:25] time check: :85 min [22:25] (i need to sign of in 5-ish minutes) [22:26] of course, we need to look at a better syntax [22:26] Yes. The basic feature is great. I have only argued against the syntax which I still personally do not quite understand. [22:27] META:BASE ? [22:27] i also do not understand the proposal on top as it stands [22:28] it needs to be rewritten [22:28] I don't see where BASE=Foo.BarForm is written [22:28] or should be written [22:28] in a formula, or meta data? [22:29] Yes. Same problem I have. I do not understand the syntax and how to use it. [22:30] ok. Koen, please rewrite your proposal in tutorial form [22:30] pong [22:30] homework for koen: come up with an intuitive syntax for app developers (not nurses) and document on proposal topic [22:31] the syntax is dead-simple actually [22:31] personally i find this intutive: %META:FORM{name="EmployeeHandbookForm" base="GlossaryForm"}%. [22:31] PeterThoeny_: that's behind-the-scenes syntax... [22:32] i think lavr is referring to the syntax in the form topic, no? [22:32] yes, an on ui read my comment of 24 sep 2007 [22:32] Yes. [22:32] anyway, perhaps there is something in Sven's suggestion of properly interpreting INCLUDE's instead of introducing new syntax.. [22:33] anyway, i'll see if i can rewrite that proposal sometime soon, there's been some plugin work people have been asking of me too [22:34] (ps sorry for not being here earlier, i just got home) [22:35] well, intuitively I would say that the inheritance creates cleaner code than the includes [22:35] on ui, when you select a form you can optionally select a base form [22:36] a base form could inherit from another form, so multiple levels of inheritance could be possible [22:36] i need to sign off now [22:36] PeterThoeny_: good point, about the ui [22:37] ok, bye Peter [22:37] once a form and base form is selected it is on the tenmplate topic, e.g. normal users never get bothere with inheritance [22:37] bye, Peter. [22:37] INCLUDE's is what i originally hoped (and expected) to work though.. [22:37] ok, bye now [22:37] Peter what about 3) [22:37] ? [22:37] i let the irc on [22:37] bye peter [22:37] please brainstrom on #3 [22:37] INCLUDES don't yet, although Sven did make some changes some time ago [22:38] i will read the log [22:38] Peter what is the date for a proposal to be entered on Codev. YOU insisted on taking this action at the Summit [22:38] And we know the lack of this is the main reason Crawford does not contribute or show up here [22:39] ps, on the addtohead discussion: one of the standard patches i usually have on twiki installations is to replace the non-ordering by a simple alphanumeric ordering, that usuallyw orks fine :) [22:39] yes, i took that a.i. [22:39] did not follow up because i do not work with a gun on my head [22:39] will do so now [22:39] hmm, alphanumeric. TWiki does not even sort capitals correctly [22:40] just a perl sort that is.. on the key's.. [22:40] so there may be hidden critters [22:40] ttyl, thanks for participating on the release meeting, and please continue! [22:40] anyway, i have not been following the addtohead discussion, as it seemd overly complicated to me.. not KISS [22:41] have a nice day peter [22:41] Bye Peter. [22:42] We are out of agenda items. [22:42] Koen anything you want to bring up from the beginning of the meeting? [22:43] no i haven't read back enough yet, plus i wasn't there so i've missed my chance :) [22:43] We discussed how to get the bug fixing moving again. [22:44] * dtolj has quit IRC ("leaving") [22:50] OK. Seems we are Done. Thank you all. [22:50] thanks Kenneth [22:50] Thanks for letting me participate [22:50] You are always welcome. [22:51] One of the main purposes of keeping these meeting open for anyone to be in and vote in is to get "customer" feedback and involvement. [22:52] I'll switch over to idling in just #twiki [22:52] * AcridSaint has left #twiki_release