Session Start: Mon Mar 27 22:05:52 2006 Session Ident: #twiki_edinburgh * Logging #twiki_edinburgh to 'c:\#twiki_edinburgh.freenode.log' [22:05:53] good whisky; Bruichladdich tonight [22:05:58] Well. My view on 4.0.2 is.... [22:05:59] - It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. [22:05:59] - Hit it. [22:06:06] heheh [22:06:28] but have we got cop shocks? [22:06:39] Yeah [22:07:06] ok. FWIW the bug DB is as empty as it's going to get. [22:07:19] I would like to revert Arthur's change [22:07:28] I refuse to have a view on Peter's change [22:07:44] I have had my views. Nothing more to add. [22:08:14] hmmm, any action items from last meeting we are missing, perhaps? [22:08:18] * SteffenPoulsen goes checking [22:08:24] Lynnwood: ? [22:08:30] ArthurClemens: ? [22:08:37] Antonesque: ? [22:08:42] yea - i'm here [22:08:47] just checking ;-) [22:09:12] y? [22:09:23] i'm of understanding the meeting starts in 1 hour like last few meetings. i was hoping to get some lunch first. [22:09:31] there's one ugly one we could do a tiny bit of: Upgrade all TWiki web topics to Dakar (enclosed properly in header/footer & START/ENDSECTION as documented in DistributionDocument) [22:09:51] and maybe read background on recent controversy to see how to deal with it. [22:09:52] that doesn;t affect the release [22:09:55] or shouldn;t [22:10:16] agreed on that part .. [22:10:23] Lynnwood: we were hoping to get done before midnight [22:11:49] Lavr: Hope we don't get any of: [22:11:50] Elwood: Oh no. [22:11:50] Jake: What the fuck was that? [22:11:50] Elwood: The motor. We've thrown a rod. [22:11:50] Jake: Is that serious? [22:11:50] Elwood: Yup. [22:11:57] i can understand that. are you suggesting we start now? who can we do for folks that show up at the announced time of meeting. [22:12:58] Well. It is hard to make decisions without Peter and Sven at least [22:13:06] But we can still clear out todos [22:13:33] the question regarding the doc topic is going to be "is it scriptable" once again .. [22:13:41] well - i'll go grab something to munch on and bbib [22:13:56] Right. We can document our input to the decisions, but not finalise them. [22:14:05] SteffenPoulsen: what doc topic? [22:14:18] The docs for t.o [22:14:45] That noone wants to do manually. [22:15:54] well, I started scripting the necessary changes, but gave up [22:16:13] but the groundwork is still there for anyone who wants to continue [22:16:18] CDot. In case you did not read the log. I confirmed that the Wysiwyg plugin now understands Polish. No hanging. Nothing in error_log [22:16:24] OK, I'll see if I can get some of them comments merged in while we're waiting [22:16:28] Lavr: :-) [22:18:11] Lavr: sorry about the crap TML it produces [22:18:32] the HTML is full of double-tags e.g. [22:18:46] which presumably means "very strong" [22:18:56] Well. Never mind that. The input is shit. As long as it does not hang up the server [22:20:18] right. [22:20:51] There may be cases where the server appears to hang again; there are certain pathological cases, esp. involving embedded tables [22:21:20] in general, though, the new code should be a lot more aggressive about ignoring "bad" html [22:22:22] I am quite convinced that this was an infinite loop because it produced 46000000 bytes of error_log in 44 minutes. [22:23:06] When you copy paste in IE and Windows you get additional crap pasted in. [22:24:03] perhaps; but I can assure you there are no loops in the code, it is a tree-walk [22:24:30] so unless the parser was having a problem, I still think it was just a massive chunder [22:25:47] But you did not get the errors right? [22:26:51] The errors were saved in a rate of 40 per second. So it is not a small loop in a code block. [22:35:08] i'm back. has anyone identified some items we could cover without everyone present? [22:35:45] I am looking at Arthurs bug trying to understand it. [22:35:59] 1971 tagged at patch [22:36:12] "normal" [22:38:06] That and the home page one are the only open patch bugs [22:38:28] probably something in the url including code / text grabbing that's excluding stuff in < > [22:38:29] So no showstoppers. We can release for sure. [22:39:21] ArthurClemens, did you implement the proposed Apache config work around to avoid DOS? [22:39:40] And did you activate allow URLS in include? [22:39:50] $text =~ s///gis; # remove all SCRIPTs [22:40:20] Well. That is clear then. And probably also the safest to do. [22:40:42] somehow it should be possible to disable sub _cleanupIncludedHTML, to allow for a _raw_ include [22:43:10] I think in BlackListPlugin needs to be extended to have a positive list of URLs before I would dare having something like that. [22:43:40] ok [22:44:15] * bitca has joined #twiki_edinburgh [22:44:39] * bitca yawns [22:45:12] We are on daylight saving time in Europe so we have been here for nearly an hour. [22:45:20] Silly people [22:45:43] So, no one is going to see if DateFieldPlugin is broken or it's just luser error? [22:45:45] So now the time difference to you is 7 hours and 50 years [22:46:04] 50 years in which direction, btw? [22:48:01] Same as the 7 naturally. [22:48:34] You still live in caves and fight all day over there we have heard on the news. [22:48:38] Snarky outlanders [22:48:55] I had some Icelandic pastry for the first time yesterday. Yummy [22:50:09] If you really were 50 years ahead you wouldn't have been here for an hour already. =P [22:50:30] bitca: you're right; make that 50 years *and one hour* [22:55:04] * PeterThoeny has joined #twiki_edinburgh [22:55:12] with a few minutes before the meeting, i'd welcome suggestions for addressing question about home topic. [22:55:41] hi all [22:55:48] i don't think much discussion would be very helpful (nor do i hear desire for it) [22:55:51] hi peter [22:55:53] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/EdinburghReleaseMeeting2006x03x27 [22:55:59] hiya [22:56:13] Well, I stated my very brief reaction: this is a bug fix release [22:56:25] Not much more to say, IMHO [22:56:41] I have said more than enough. All knows my views. [22:57:05] Lynnwood: what about "home topic"? [22:57:15] And having retracted a couple of changes because they weren't bug fixes, I'm a bit peeved [22:57:17] * wbniv has joined #twiki_edinburgh [22:57:22] Or I would be if I weren't so tired [22:57:23] the twiki.org home topic? [22:57:33] No, people's home topics [22:57:55] let's come back to it since we're coming up now on meeting start [22:58:11] Let's look at the agenda and see if anything needs to be added/changed. [22:59:30] Any additions or changes to agenda? [22:59:47] Is Steffen minuting? [23:00:01] opps. thanks lavr! [23:00:14] yepper [23:00:15] Is that like seconding? [23:00:23] and do we have a time expectation/limit for this meeting? [23:00:36] i'd like 60 min [23:00:54] main focus is 4.0.2 release [23:00:58] Yes. Central Europe is already at 23:02 [23:01:07] Shall me shoot for 60 min? [23:01:14] Please [23:01:17] 60 min it is, on we go :-) [23:01:23] sounds good. [23:01:45] thanks lynnwood for facilitating, thanks steffen for minute taking! [23:01:58] OK - let's jump into " Review action items of previous meeting" [23:02:27] can we just hear from folks that have assigned actions? [23:02:35] no news on docs from my side [23:03:15] let's see - you're referring to the 2nd and 3rd bullet items? [23:03:32] actually to previous previous meeting [23:03:35] so n/a [23:04:05] * Lynnwood is not sure he understood that exchange but plows ahead [23:04:18] I didn't get any work done on docs neither, hoped I'd have gotten myself to take a shot [23:04:19] how about contact with ISP re email problem? [23:04:22] on bugs review, only 1920 needs to be discussed [23:04:41] email: not yet [23:04:45] ok [23:05:31] well let's look at Item1920 [23:05:55] I'm not happy about it, but I was outvoted, I think [23:06:10] 1920 had a long term part (configurable) and a short term (cook book). [23:06:46] Arthur - did you add a cook book on how to add the twisty for forms? [23:06:46] Cook book of course works either way [23:06:59] no I didn't [23:07:04] That is, there could be a recipe for how to remove it [23:07:35] well it is removed now [23:07:37] the idea is to add a recipe on how to add a twisty [23:07:38] Bitca - decision was made. We are looking at outstanding actions. [23:07:59] so leave it as action point [23:08:08] ok, cookbook item still outstanding, no problems in that [23:08:19] OK - so we're clear on action needed on Item1920? [23:08:23] No. We can release without the cookbook. [23:08:29] related to pattern cookbook [23:08:31] that's my question [23:09:00] what's the question? whether we can release without added cookbook? [23:09:03] y [23:09:09] not for 4.0.2, but for minor upgrade i think we should move some of the pattern doc from distributed doc to supplemental doc [23:09:29] anyone speak to wbniv's question? [23:09:35] lavr did :) [23:09:37] that way it is easy to update the docs and all users will have access to the latest docs [23:09:42] Arthur - you plan to stay up all night and do a cookbook? Otherwise I suggest we live with having it added to t.o later. [23:10:14] no, NEED to sleep tonight [23:10:24] about 50 mins [23:10:30] I want to be able to put it in without svn buggering everything up [23:10:33] if not the cookbook itself then, can there be a link from the shipped topics to a TWiki: topic, which can be created in the next day or two? [23:10:52] Arthur - That is what we all expected :-) [23:11:00] not bad suggestion and in line with direction i hear peter suggesting. [23:11:03] alright then [23:11:25] OK, anything else on that item? [23:11:26] a TWiki topic pointing to the cookbook? [23:11:44] or a reference in an existing topic [23:11:58] but on twiki.org that is? [23:12:00] Just clear instructions on how to put it back in [23:12:02] In the list of cookbooks you have in the PatternSkin topic - add a link to TWiki:Codev.blabla [23:12:13] arthur: no, better to add a pointer to a supplental doc on twiki.org from an existing pattern cookbook [23:12:39] now I don't understand, where should it point to? [23:12:58] blabla [23:13:00] ? [23:13:10] TWiki:TWiki.PatternSkinHideFormWithTwisty [23:13:13] (or something like that) [23:13:18] create a new topic on twiki.org's twiki web, call it for example TWikistyCookbookSupplement [23:13:20] TWiki:TWiki.PatternCookbookSkinHideFormWithTwisty [23:13:38] then link to it from a pattern topic [23:13:41] why not put all cookbook entries on TWiki then? [23:13:44] Yes. Peter. Exactly. An index page where anyone can add more nice cookbooks [23:14:04] Leave the ones that are there. They are all very basic and very good. [23:14:30] that is exactly the purpose of of http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/SupplementalDocument [23:14:34] is it about findability, or about creating additions? [23:15:10] On the http://merlin.lavrsen.dk/twiki/bin/view/TWiki/PatternSkin there is the list of Cookbooks at the bottom. I would add the link there [23:15:24] the SupplementalDocument index page points to supplemental docs [23:15:27] never mind, let's just leave this for 4.0.3 [23:15:30] it's pretty trivial [23:15:33] * Lynnwood is afraid this topic is quickly morphing into larger discussion. [23:15:36] esp. in the grand scheme of things [23:15:41] the official docs have deep linking into the supplemental docs [23:15:53] ok [23:16:15] I would link to TWikistyCookbookSupplement not to specific cookbooks [23:16:33] No that was wrong. [23:16:53] ArthurClemens - are you sufficiently clear on your short-term action now (or who you might talk to to work it out)? [23:16:58] so for 4.0.2 just a minimalistic thing: create TwistyCookbookSupplement on twiki.org and and link to it from a pattern topic [23:16:59] It must be PatternSkinCookbookSupplement. [23:17:30] ok, kenneth has a good point [23:17:45] yes [23:17:50] Just link to this page which is just a placeholder for now. [23:17:54] better to name it generically and create new supplemental pattern cookbooks from there [23:18:23] OK. Thanks Arthur [23:18:26] Peter suggested that we do not need to address Items 1921, 1787 and 1896. Does everyone concur with that? Are we clear about status of these items? [23:18:39] y [23:18:41] They are all closed. [23:19:27] good think to prepare before the meeting! [23:19:28] agreed [23:19:41] OK, then shall we re-view tasks needed for 4.0.2 and timeline? [23:19:48] y [23:19:50] * CDot has quit IRC (Success) [23:20:14] We have TWO open bugs only. [23:20:15] 1971 Not possible to INCLUDE javascript from external sites [23:20:15] 1964 Todays mailing list favorite topic [23:20:15] * Lynnwood invites folks to throw out list of tasks [23:21:03] We discussed 1971 earlier and Steffen found that this is a feature - not a bug. It is coded to work like this (not including scripts). [23:21:24] It can still be discussed as an extention but it is not a bug. [23:21:30] I'll add a raw="on" parameter to INCLUDE for 1971 asap if its allowable under bugfixes, it's been bothering me a lot before [23:21:36] it is with the new INCLUDE feature [23:21:49] you can disable external includes [23:21:52] ok - so 1971 can be closed? [23:21:56] no [23:22:01] I am discussing this now [23:22:09] sorry [23:22:22] so you can disable includes in configure [23:22:38] but for an intranet this is not desirable [23:22:46] different web apps on different servers [23:22:58] I need to be able to include from these pages [23:23:03] js included [23:23:04] * Lavr has quit IRC [23:23:56] makes good sense, I believe [23:24:04] Is this solution ready for including in 4.0.2? Or can it be? [23:24:09] * Lavr has joined #twiki_edinburgh [23:24:22] I don't know how much of a change this is [23:24:30] or that it even need a new setting in configure [23:24:59] we can put it on the timeline for 4.0.3 [23:25:05] and document it now [23:25:20] how it behaves currently [23:25:28] I missed 30 seconds because the client crashed. It should be marked enhancement and discussed for next release. Not closed. It is a valid point. [23:25:51] adding the raw setting to the INCLUDE is minor, I have it ready. I will commit it for review [23:25:52] y. but at least it can be documented [23:26:13] ok - so i'm hearing now it's not something to hold up 4.0.2 [23:26:32] not worth it, if it is addressed shortly hereafter [23:26:46] so you're ok with that? [23:27:01] I don't want to hold up the release [23:27:18] We need something to work on for next release. And when we look at this we should also address the general security aspect of INCLUDE. [23:27:20] is there anything on this item that _does_ need to be addressed in 4.0.2? [23:27:41] the docs [23:27:51] in TWikiVariables [23:28:10] "external javascripts are filtered out" [23:29:17] is that all? [23:29:34] I would also add a note about security. [23:29:45] if so - can that be added to action items? and anyone willing to do that? [23:29:46] Either in VarINCLUDE or TWiki/IncludeTopicsAndWebPages [23:29:52] I can do that one [23:30:05] ok, thanks [23:30:20] What is best. VarINCLUDE or the other which is included from VarINCLUDE [23:30:23] ? [23:30:40] I'll see that it is in sync after patch, action item for me [23:31:19] Steffen - you do which action? [23:31:40] ok, JavaScript removal is documented, svn 9567 [23:31:50] [23:21:30] I'll add a raw="on" parameter to INCLUDE for 1971 asap if its allowable under bugfixes, it's been bothering me a lot before [23:32:10] wow - that was quick peter. thanks! [23:32:20] so i think we're ready to move on. [23:32:49] ok [23:32:53] So no action for me OK. [23:32:57] | =raw="on"= | When a page is included, normally %WIKITOOLNAME% will process it, doing the following: 1) Alter relative links to point back to originating host, 2) Remove some basic HTML tags (html, head, body, script) and finally 3) Remove newlines from tags spanning multiple lines. If you prefer to include _exactly_ what is in the source of the originating page set this to =on=. | disabled | [23:33:27] Any security issue with this Steffen? [23:33:40] Is that thought of carefully? [23:33:43] nope, what you can include in, you could have just written directly [23:33:53] (Peter: !JavaScript in included webpages are filtered out : only for external sites, included with http) [23:34:20] do we want to spend more time brainstorming this? [23:34:27] n [23:34:51] * Lynnwood is skeptical about trying to work out this kind of thing in the moment... [23:34:57] If Steffen is sure about security level is not lowered I am OK. [23:35:46] I have INCLUDE of URLs enabled on my Motion site so I am sensitive to not getting hacked.Tried it once. Not fun. [23:36:29] let me rephrase - can't this discussion continue later? [23:36:59] sure [23:37:00] since it's not for action in 4.0.2 [23:37:02] let's continue [23:37:02] ok [23:37:09] OK [23:37:11] now everyone's favorite topic: Item1964 [23:37:48] I have seen a lot of fuzz [23:38:04] I only have scanned this discussion but i get sense that Peter's change has generated controversy that is not likely to be resolved in time for 4.0.2 [23:38:17] is that fair assessment? [23:38:32] all: please see side by side comparison at http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/PurposeOfUserHomePage#Illustrating_Default_Homepage_Be [23:38:43] And, to repeat myself again: this is a bug fix release [23:38:50] perhaps we can talk a little about perceived bug? [23:38:52] and read the bullets below the pictures [23:39:12] Friendship is more important than cosmetics that I can change myself. I have made my arguments on the ML and I have nothing additional to add that could change anyones oppinion. [23:40:05] Peter, you're still on firefox 1! [23:40:15] yep [23:40:24] upgrade time [23:40:27] so the context that I am working in is focus on what can or can not be resolved before 4.0.2. I am not interested in entering substance of discussion unless I hear that it has likelihood of getting resolved quickly. [23:40:28] a good thing because many user are still on ff 1 [23:40:40] what suits you [23:40:45] whatever :) [23:40:58] I believe the before/after comparison speaks on it's own [23:41:24] the stated problem is clear: reduce the length of the form [23:41:51] I still prefer form on top. I have not changed my mind. [23:41:52] only show the filled in fields is a solution [23:42:16] I presented it to some of my users. They were as devided as we are. It is a matter of taste. [23:42:20] the long form is only a tangential thing [23:42:38] the point is to have the flexibility to turn a user homepage into a portal [23:42:59] Fine. It's an enhancement. Next releasse [23:43:03] can this be done using the original form just showing the filled in fields? [23:43:12] no [23:43:18] i'm going to start pushing a little harder here. I am hearing no evidence that this can be resolved in timely manner. [23:43:27] because there is no provision to add non-form stuff [23:44:01] I would not hide fields. Then the user does not know they are there to be filled out and he will never hit edit. No matter if it is at the bottom or top [23:44:09] well, if you look a the screenshots it is evident that it is a incremental better solution [23:44:17] that can be improved going forward [23:44:40] Peter - that may be evident to you but I am not hearing it is evident to others. [23:44:42] It is not evident. It is a matter of taste. I like the simple user topic with the form on top. [23:44:54] yep, as this won't touch the user homepages themselves, I agree this is a good (even if intermediate) solution [23:44:55] the hide fields feature is a feature that needs to be discussed [23:46:01] Do what you want. I will change my userview template to the 4.0.1 form and be happy with that. It is not worth fighting about. [23:46:09] what non-form stuff should be added? [23:46:39] on the link i sent before, see " Example "Above the Fold" View with Contact Info & Personal Portal" [23:46:54] OK, i need a straw poll: is this a discussion that must be addressed prior to 4.0.2? 0 for no, leave it out for now. 5 for yes, absolutely we need to resolve it now. [23:47:04] 0 [23:47:14] or leave it in for now and build up later [23:47:38] lynnwood, the question is not fair i think [23:47:45] I am not for immature solutions [23:48:15] Peter - as i understand it, several people have made strong request that this change be reversed until more discussion. [23:48:23] It is not correct to make a user interface enhancement in a bug fix release a few days before release. [23:48:28] ArthurClemens: not a WabiSabi kind-of-guy? :-) [23:48:30] that is gist i get from reading discussion. [23:48:50] i am not hung up on this small usability enhencement [23:49:13] but i'd like to point out that there are other ui changes that are more drastic than this one [23:49:19] fo 4.0.2 [23:49:24] good - then it can be reversed for 4.0.2 and then you can make the case [23:49:27] giving the user more options on his homepage is a good idea but needs more work [23:49:37] OK? [23:49:40] such as moving search & jump from sidebar to top [23:49:55] still the inconsistencies on the page (the form) could be addressed now [23:50:04] It is that it is done a few days before so we cannot test and optimize. We have severe bugs that are waiting to be fixed with the 4.0.2 release and we should ship this ASAP. [23:50:07] i made my case already [23:50:13] * FJ has joined #twiki_edinburgh [23:50:16] There are also bugs that aren't being fixed for 4.0.2. Shall we reopen them too? [23:50:25] discussions are on different subjects, such as hiding fields in form [23:50:34] bitca: after the new zip is released [23:50:34] * FJ has left #twiki_edinburgh [23:50:35] those are feature enhancements [23:50:41] my change is only doc related [23:50:45] no code change [23:50:59] but there have not been request to reverse code change. [23:51:28] Templates can be as buggy as code. [23:51:48] so on 1964, i am of understanding that we are going to reverse this change for now (4/.0.2) and then continue to discuss it. [23:51:58] to be specific, i am not hung up on this small usability enhencement _for 4.0.2_ [23:52:14] Then let's move along [23:52:28] OK [23:52:43] anywya .. I can't think of any of my users that wouldn't be more happy looking at the right side of the before & after .. I think it's a good and non-inflictive/non-intrusive way of getting started on something even better [23:53:05] So put in a VIEW_TEMPLATE for your users and make them happy. [23:53:09] * PeterThoeny thinks what else needs to be discussed, the benefits are documented in Codev.PurposeOfUserHomePage, related features should be handled as new features [23:53:28] I wonder what is reverted now [23:53:42] we are at 7 minutes before hour - when we targeted to conclude meeting. [23:53:43] also the "edit personal data" link? [23:54:42] I would revert all back and then work on a really cool user home topic for next release. [23:54:59] well, we're all going to do exactly what we feel like with the user homepages .. this is just agreeing on a sensible default for the ones not-so-able [23:55:33] That is why I like the default simple. The rest of us will taylor it anyway to something 3rd. [23:55:37] my understanding was what Lavr said. does someone understand something else? [23:55:46] but some changes have been in DEVELOP as well [23:56:09] Keep them in DEVELOP then - then we can continue from where we are there. [23:56:26] and judging from the two screenshot, I belive most people will point ... right [23:56:38] Gah! [23:56:49] hold it please, i'd like to get a sense from the participants on this question: [23:57:09] * Lynnwood is curious how much more we can discuss schedule for 4.0.2 release without Sven being here. [23:57:19] this new home page layout an improvement, e.g. keep now, and improve (0 revert, 5 keep & improve) [23:57:21] Sven is not doing the releasse [23:57:29] grrrr [23:57:34] Lynnwood: Sven is out of time [23:57:40] ok [23:57:50] He was going to do it last week, but... [23:57:53] Lynnwood: i'm doing the build [23:58:05] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/BuildingARelease [23:58:13] OK. thanks wbniv! [23:58:20] of course, sven is available for consulting, should i need clarifications :) [23:58:34] OK I want to know know, are we discussing the release or the user page? [23:58:41] OK, Peters vote first? [23:58:59] i am about to run out of time for this meeting and don't see that we are completing our agenda. [23:59:19] 5 [23:59:23] 0 [23:59:23] 5 [23:59:24] 0 [23:59:31] 0 [23:59:32] * SvenDowideit has joined #twiki_edinburgh [23:59:56] and that has all to do with the time frame [23:59:57] great - so we get very clear picture that there is disagreement here that is not likely to get resolved at this time. [23:59:57] 0 [23:59:58] hi Sven! Session Time: Tue Mar 28 00:00:00 2006 [00:00:28] 0 [00:00:36] moin [00:00:37] moin [00:00:57] 5 post 4.0.2, but 0 for 4.0.2 [00:01:26] i'll stay for a few more minutes if we can return to agenda item of what needs to happen for 4.0.2. [00:01:31] ok, lets remove it from 4.0.2 and re-insert immediately after release [00:01:48] ok. thank-you peter [00:01:54] as i said, i am not hung up on this for 4.0.2 [00:01:55] it can stay in develop [00:01:56] :-) not a bad suggestion [00:01:57] so, we should work on 4.1 next? [00:02:04] What about the other apporaches to it that I've raised? [00:02:17] i'd recommend that people bang on what's there [00:02:23] Do we want to ship 4.0.2 this week? [00:02:26] If we keep in DEVELOP we can try other approaches... [00:02:41] Antonesque: well, post 4.0.2 discussion now [00:02:47] bitca: yes, tomorrow, i'd prefer (or even tonight if svn is ready) [00:02:56] Yes. Keep in DEVELOP and let us all work on a great user home for 4.1. [00:03:10] Lynnwood: any last agenda items we need to consider? [00:03:23] ah, what needs to happen, yep [00:03:25] +62 min now [00:03:37] wbniv - what help or actions to you need to make 4.0.2 [00:03:37] ? [00:03:42] So I guess the next step it - Will builds a ZIP [00:04:15] wbniv - will you also be creating a zip of the changed files? [00:04:15] Peter reverts 1964 or action item for who? [00:04:16] And code freeze should be obvious. [00:04:17] just to know when svn is ready -- current TWikiRelease04x00 is at 9569 (but that doesn't include the pending svn changes/revs) [00:04:31]