[13:46] *** #twiki_edinburgh: PeterThoeny Soronthar CDot @SvenDowideit 
[13:46] *** #twiki_edinburgh was created on Mon May 15 02:08:53 2006.
[13:59] Soronthar: Hi all?
[13:59] PeterThoeny: hi rafael
[13:59] Soronthar: Hi Peter
[14:00] PeterThoeny: i am looking forward to see your config panel deployed :-)
[14:00] Soronthar: Yeah, me too ;)
[14:01] PeterThoeny: is crawford here?
[14:01] PeterThoeny: sven?
[14:01] *** Drusilla has joined #twiki_edinburgh.
[14:02] *** Lavr has joined #twiki_edinburgh.
[14:02] Lavr: Good evening
[14:02] Drusilla: good afternoon ;)
[14:02] PeterThoeny: hi kenneth!
[14:02] PeterThoeny: kind of late for you
[14:02] PeterThoeny: what time?
[14:03] Drusilla: 11?
[14:04] PeterThoeny: will will not be here today
[14:05] Lavr: Yeah it is 23:00 here
[14:05] Drusilla: Guess that takes 4.0.3 off the agenda (the build, that is)
[14:05] *** Flenser has joined #twiki_edinburgh.
[14:05] Lavr: Bugs is totally dead it seems
[14:05] PeterThoeny: will will be will-ing to work on build ;-)
[14:05] CDot: really? since when?
[14:06] PeterThoeny: hi crawford
[14:06] Lavr: Don't know. The RSS feed does not answer at all
[14:06] PeterThoeny: rss of what?
[14:06] CDot: hi Peter
[14:06] Lavr: OK. Bugs runs. The RSS feed does not.
[14:07] Lavr: Ah. Parse error.
[14:07] CDot: ok.
[14:07] PeterThoeny: shall we get started?
[14:07] *** HaraldJoerg has joined #twiki_edinburgh.
[14:07] PeterThoeny: who is moderating?
[14:07] PeterThoeny: who is taking notes?
[14:07] Lavr: Bugs web does not exist on the TWiki4 version of bugs
[14:08] Lavr: I can take notes
[14:08] *** Lynnwood has joined #twiki_edinburgh.
[14:08] PeterThoeny: thanks kenneth :-)
[14:08] Lynnwood: Hey all
[14:09] Lavr: Peter. I only received the invitation on the core list. Never on the devel Mailing list
[14:09] Lynnwood: sorry i'm running late
[14:09] PeterThoeny: hi lynnwood, was just going to ask where you are
[14:09] Lynnwood: here i is
[14:09] PeterThoeny: so we are all set to go
[14:09] Lynnwood: i've just run in so haven't seen agenda or anything
[14:09] PeterThoeny: (Link: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/EdinburghReleaseMeeting2006x05x15)http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/EdinburghReleaseMeeting2006x05x15
[14:10] Lynnwood: do you have facilitator or need one?
[14:10] PeterThoeny: you are a good facilitator
[14:10] Lynnwood: i'm willing if needed. just catching up
[14:11] PeterThoeny: yes, please
[14:11] Drusilla: Well, we haven't started yet
[14:11] Lynnwood: ok. great! 
[14:11] Lynnwood: reviewing the agenda in the topic: anything to add last minute?
[14:12] Lynnwood: i guess i have idea to float at end if time
[14:12] Lynnwood: about trying out telephony
[14:12] Lynnwood: last call on the agenda... 
[14:13] Lynnwood: ---+ Review Previous Action Items (15 minutes)
[14:13] Lynnwood: ---++ Moving Twiki.org
[14:13] Lynnwood: anyone give us an update?
[14:14] PeterThoeny: basically ready, except for outgoping email
[14:14] PeterThoeny: i was bugging sven again
[14:14] PeterThoeny: he said that he looked into it shortly
[14:14] PeterThoeny: but that he needs more time
[14:14] Lavr: It is sendmail that needs to be setup?
[14:14] PeterThoeny: the update has high priority
[14:14] PeterThoeny: we can't let that linger any longer
[14:15] PeterThoeny: some server setup is missing/incorrect
[14:15] PeterThoeny: sendmail and net::smtp is not working
[14:15] Lavr: Where did you get stuck? There must be plenty of people on the larger ML that can help
[14:15] PeterThoeny: but zone records, dns and all other settings look ok
[14:16] Lavr: Can you manually send an email from the server?
[14:16] PeterThoeny: no
[14:16] PeterThoeny: i relayed the error message to the isp and to sven
[14:16] PeterThoeny: is there an easy way to disable outgoing e-mail?
[14:17] PeterThoeny: we could switch without working e-mail
[14:17] Lavr: Sendmail is not easy to setup - I have a working local sendmail. I'll be happy to send you the configs of my installation.
[14:17] HaraldJoerg: PeterThoeny: Not yet, unfortunately.  There's an open support call about that as well
[14:17] Soronthar: PeterThoeny: Can you "ping" the smtp server from the new server?
[14:17] Drusilla: postfix is far better
[14:17] CDot: HaraldJoerg: reference?
[14:18] Drusilla: But, offline?
[14:18] PeterThoeny: this is on solaris
[14:18] PeterThoeny: better no to debug here
[14:18] HaraldJoerg: CDot: TWiki:Support.DisableEmailSendForRegistration
[14:18] PeterThoeny: kenneth: please send the config, that might help
[14:18] HaraldJoerg: (Link: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Support/DisableEmailSendForRegistration)http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Support/DisableEmailSendForRegistration - no nightmarebot ;-)
[14:19] Lavr: Tomorrow Peter. I will sleep right after this meeting. I'll simply pack the entire /etc/mail
[14:19] PeterThoeny: ok, thanks
[14:19] Lynnwood: Enough on that for now?
[14:19] Lynnwood: anything else for the upgrade? doesn
[14:19] Lynnwood: t sound like it.
[14:19] PeterThoeny: idea: configure twiki to use sendmail, but call a dropmail script instead :-)
[14:20] Soronthar: as the sendmail command is configurable.....
[14:20] PeterThoeny: the twiki web is not updated yet, but i will run twiki 4 on twiki04 web
[14:21] PeterThoeny: i'll need to install twikidrawplugin and other non-standard plugins there
[14:21] *** ArthurClemens has joined #twiki_edinburgh.
[14:21] Lynnwood: you know, i have a little perl script for sending emails if we're only talking sending out the registration emails for now.
[14:21] CDot: you can easily switch in an alternate mail handler
[14:22] PeterThoeny: no, the problem is not on the perl side, it is an outgoing e-mail setup question
[14:22] ArthurClemens: Sorry guys - I was working and forgot about the meeing
[14:22] PeterThoeny: arthur: the invite did not go through again
[14:22] Lynnwood: this is a stand along email program. doesn't use sendmail
[14:23] PeterThoeny: lynnwood: the mail command does not work either
[14:23] CDot: PeterThoeny: I am aware of that. I was offering a workaround.
[14:23] Lynnwood: anyway, i can forward it to someone to see if it it's of any use.
[14:23] ArthurClemens: I got an invite yesterday evening
[14:23] Lynnwood: shall we go on to Tinderbox
[14:23] Lynnwood: ?
[14:23] PeterThoeny: lynnwood: it is worth a try, please send to me?
[14:23] Lynnwood: sure
[14:23] PeterThoeny: ok, next
[14:24] Lynnwood: Tinderbox?
[14:24] PeterThoeny: no result yet on my side
[14:24] PeterThoeny: on sponsor
[14:24] Lynnwood: ok - moving on then
[14:24] Lynnwood: ---+  2. TWiki 4.0.3 Release (10 minutes)
[14:24] Lynnwood:     *  Desired outcome: Clarify remaining issue, confirm release date
[14:25] Drusilla: Is that the joomla thingie?
[14:25] PeterThoeny: what is the status on requirements and urgent?
[14:25] CDot: all done
[14:25] PeterThoeny: cool
[14:25] Lavr: Did Sven clean the Joomla stuff?
[14:25] Lynnwood: way cool!
[14:26] Lynnwood: whoa - I'm not getting the drift into Joomla stuff!
[14:26] Lavr: Configure has a lot of refs to a not yet implemented feature: Joomla
[14:26] PeterThoeny: i thought that we agreed not to add features to dot releases
[14:26] Lavr: The fix for a release is to delete it from TWiki.cfg.
[14:26] PeterThoeny: this is interesting new stuff
[14:27] PeterThoeny: but not for 4.0.3 if not documented and tested
[14:27] Lavr: Yes. But we cannot let our users look at configs with no code behind.
[14:27] Lavr: There is no code that does any of it checked into Twiki4
[14:27] PeterThoeny: oic
[14:27] Lavr: It is just in configure
[14:27] PeterThoeny: you asked sven, what was his answer?
[14:28] Lynnwood: why does it need to be in this release?
[14:28] PeterThoeny: it does not
[14:28] Lynnwood: so do i hear that it's going to be backed out for 4.0.3?
[14:28] PeterThoeny: well, one idea is to review what enhancements made it into the latest twiki 4, and based on that decide if this is 4.0.3 or 4.1.0
[14:28] Lavr: Sven did not seem to care to much this morning.
[14:29] Lynnwood: CDot or anyone else, can you comment on that idea?
[14:29] PeterThoeny: is there a report that shows the enh?
[14:29] CDot: release notes
[14:29] PeterThoeny: are they updated?
[14:30] Drusilla: We're well over the 15 minutes for review
[14:30] Lynnwood: could someone be so kind to provide a url?
[14:30] Lynnwood: Thanks Dru!
[14:30] Drusilla: Oh, sorry. Was scrolled up. Ignore that
[14:31] CDot: they are dynamically generated
[14:31] Drusilla: AFAIK there are no enhancements in the 4.0.3 code
[14:31] CDot: (Link: http://develop.twiki.org/~develop/cgi-bin/view/Bugs/ReleaseNotes?type=patch)http://develop.twiki.org/~develop/cgi-bin/view/Bugs/ReleaseNotes?type=patch
[14:31] Drusilla: Except for whatever has been done to configure
[14:31] PeterThoeny: just checked the release notes, there is no doc on 4.0.1, 4.0.2 differences
[14:31] CDot: enhancements are at the end
[14:31] Lynnwood: it strikes me as more of a discussion than we've agreed for to consider making this release 4.1
[14:31] Lavr: The release note is almost automatic. The only cleanout we always have to do is go through the bugs and change those where we fixed something we broke after 4.0.2 release and change it from Waiting for Release to Closed.
[14:32] Drusilla: Quite. If it's 4.1, then that's a much larger discussion
[14:32] Soronthar: brb
[14:32] Lavr: We did not really add new features - did we?
[14:32] Drusilla: I hope not
[14:32] Lynnwood: I'd like to propose that if we want to try to figure a schedule for 4.0.2, we should just past on backing out any non-bug-fixing code that slipped in.
[14:32] PeterThoeny: the url provided shows 3 minor
[14:32] Lynnwood: s/past/plan
[14:33] PeterThoeny: looks like it is more like a 4.0.3 than a 4.1, is it?
[14:33] Drusilla: Yes
[14:34] Lavr: yes it is a true patch release this time. And should be easy to upgrade.
[14:34] Lynnwood: ok, let's stick with that.
[14:34] PeterThoeny: ok
[14:34] CDot: I just whisked through the release note topics; it's 4.0.3.
[14:34] Lynnwood: anyone willing to coordinate clarifying any "loose ends" that don't belong in this release?
[14:34] Lynnwood: with sven or who ever...
[14:34] PeterThoeny: on release notes, i think TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x00 should have a section for 4.0.1, one for 4.0.2, one for 4.0.3 listing the fixes and enh
[14:35] Lynnwood: I'll ask another question about 4.0.2 that i don't see on agenda:
[14:35] Lynnwood: is Will still willing to do the release?
[14:35] Lynnwood: Seems he was last week or some time back...
[14:35] Drusilla: Able is more the question, I reckon
[14:35] PeterThoeny: the release topic in codev web has a good list on fixes and enh, this should go into the release notes
[14:35] Lavr: He has been working on it and raised some bug items related to the build stuff.
[14:36] Drusilla: He's out of town, is my point
[14:36] PeterThoeny: i will meet him on wed
[14:36] Drusilla: Dunno how that will affect the build
[14:36] Lavr: When is he back?
[14:36] PeterThoeny: he is travelling in s.f. bay area
[14:36] Lynnwood: but he's still "the man" as far as anyone knows?
[14:36] Drusilla: So date is not 16 May
[14:36] Drusilla: But, yes, he's still the man
[14:36] PeterThoeny: he is busy in day time
[14:36] PeterThoeny: i do not know how much time he has
[14:37] PeterThoeny: is is connected though (last night seen on irc)
[14:37] PeterThoeny: anyone spoke to him about current status of pre-release build?
[14:38] CDot: where are the 4.0.2 release notes?
[14:38] * CDot was expecting to find TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x02.txt in svn
[14:39] PeterThoeny: crawford: afaik they are not in the package, just listed at (Link: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiRelease04x00x02)http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiRelease04x00x02
[14:39] PeterThoeny: which should be fixed
[14:39] PeterThoeny: hence why i asked to update the release notes with the 4.0.1, 4.0.2 and 4.0.3 sections
[14:40] PeterThoeny: s/asked/suggested/
[14:40] Drusilla: tick tick
[14:40] PeterThoeny: anyone helping out on the release notes update?
[14:40] CDot: ok; they should be in the package, IMHO
[14:41] CDot: we just use the ReleaseNotes topic to generate them; this is just a patch release
[14:41] CDot: I don;t know how Will generated the file differences list last time
[14:42] CDot: I'm sure he probably has a script; we should ask him to check it in and document it
[14:42] PeterThoeny: the list for the release notes does not need to be big
[14:42] Lavr: I like the notes that were done for 4.0.2. And it was almost automatic.
[14:42] PeterThoeny: what is now in "Patch Log of 4.0.2" of Codev.TWikiRelease04x00x02 is sufficient
[14:42] Lynnwood: OK sounds like we can't schedule the release until Will's back in the loop
[14:43] Lynnwood: so should we move on?
[14:43] PeterThoeny: who is taking the action item on updating the release notes?
[14:43] * Lavr asks descretely CDot to look at develop bugs. Sorry
[14:44] * Lavr wishes I could spell
[14:44] Drusilla: discretely
[14:44] Drusilla: Actually, discreetly, sorry
[14:44] Lynnwood: So we're agreed that adding the patch log to the release notes is sufficient?
[14:44] Drusilla: Two different words
[14:45] Lynnwood: in that case, sounds like a small matter.
[14:45] PeterThoeny: crawford, on "CDot was expecting to find TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x02.txt in svn", i think we agreed in a prior meeting to use just TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x00 for all patch releases
[14:46] PeterThoeny: (right now there is only a TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x00.txt)
[14:47] Lavr: We actually improved the release notes a lot the days after the release. It is before you download you really need to know if you need the upgrade.
[14:47] Lynnwood: could this be taken off line? we're over time quite a bit on this item.
[14:47] PeterThoeny: ok, i will take the a.i. for updating TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x00.txt with 4.0.1 and 4.0.2 sections
[14:47] Lynnwood: next item:
[14:47] Lynnwood:  3. Single Branch Plugin Development (X minutes)
[14:47] PeterThoeny: lynnwood, sorry but what is the status on release?
[14:48] Lynnwood: I believe it is that we need to hear from Will before we can set a target date.
[14:48] Lynnwood: besides that, there are some relatively small matters to attend to in the mean time.
[14:48] Lynnwood: backing out non-bug fixes
[14:48] Lynnwood: and getting the release notes ready
[14:49] PeterThoeny: that can be done quickly
[14:49] PeterThoeny: so if will is ready can we release this week?
[14:49] Lynnwood: i don't see why not, if Will's willing
[14:49] PeterThoeny: translations ok?
[14:49] Lynnwood: if will's willy willing
[14:49] Lynnwood: sorry...
[14:49] PeterThoeny: will will be willing?
[14:49] Lavr: The Joomla fix is a matter of minutes and I know of no other things that needs to get pulled out. So it is depending on Will.
[14:50] PeterThoeny: on pre-release, should we plan for x days testing?
[14:51] Lynnwood: makes sense. can someone through out # of days?
[14:51] PeterThoeny: 2 days
[14:51] PeterThoeny: ?
[14:51] Lynnwood: any objections?
[14:51] Lynnwood: going... going.... gone!
[14:51] PeterThoeny: that basically sets the release date
[14:52] PeterThoeny: next
[14:52] Lynnwood: 2 days for testing.
[14:52] Lynnwood:  3. Single Branch Plugin Development (X minutes)
[14:52] Lynnwood: perhaps we could do a straw poll on Rafael's proposal just to see where the group stands.
[14:52] Lynnwood: ?
[14:53] Soronthar: good idea
[14:53] Drusilla: If Raf's rewrite matches what we agreed to, nothing to discuss
[14:53] Lynnwood: or just ask for objections to it.
[14:53] Lynnwood: seems like it has momentum behind it.
[14:53] Lavr: Raf did a great job I think
[14:53] Drusilla: Yep
[14:53] PeterThoeny: it is a good proposal
[14:53] Lynnwood: ok, does anyone have any objections to it?
[14:54] Lynnwood: major OR minor.
[14:54] CDot: just one (sorry)
[14:54] CDot: it requires quite a few bits of code rewriting
[14:54] PeterThoeny: the only concerns/questions i have are:
 1. who is doing the merge between develop and main
 2. how can we minimize plugin divergence between main and develop
[14:55] Soronthar: 2 is outside the scope of the proposal
[14:55] Lynnwood: let's take these one at a time
[14:55] Lynnwood: CDot first
[14:55] Lynnwood: So this is an implementation concern, right?
[14:55] PeterThoeny: well, if it is out of scope it does not address one of the main requirements
[14:55] CDot: my point is that a number of scripts assume the current org
[14:56] Lynnwood: hang on Peter, let's stick to one at a time please
[14:56] CDot: we are about to change, so the scripts have to change
[14:56] CDot: someone has to make those changes
[14:56] CDot: not an objection, so much as a heads-up
[14:56] Lynnwood: and raises questions about timeframe. 
[14:56] PeterThoeny: could you quickly list the scripts?
[14:56] Lynnwood: the proposal ain't going into effect until the code changes are made.
[14:57] Lavr: On Peter point 2. The proposal has the strength that it promotes ONE branch as the general rule. And enables diversion when required. That is the art of compromize and the best of both extreme points of view where we started from.
[14:57] Lynnwood: hang on please Lavr.
[14:57] CDot: the crons on ~develop
[14:57] Lynnwood: i can't track multiple discussions
[14:57] CDot: build contrib
[14:57] CDot: it's not just a case of pointing them somewhere new
[14:58] CDot: there are new rules for checkins
[14:58] CDot: which mean script changes
[14:58] CDot: e.g. to the pre-commit
[14:58] Soronthar: so, it's two kinds of changes
[14:58] Drusilla: Could you possibly write up a topic on necessary script changes?
[14:58] Soronthar: one, scripts that do the  build
[14:58] CDot: yes, I could write a topic
[14:58] Soronthar: two, svn scripts
[14:58] Lynnwood: ok. 
[14:59] Lynnwood: The perhaps we could separate out the discussion on principle versus the implmentation.
[14:59] Soronthar: If we agree in the principle, we can start discussing the implementation.
[14:59] Lynnwood: yes
[14:59] PeterThoeny: ok, timing of model switch over depends on scripts
[14:59] Lynnwood: good
[14:59] Soronthar: yep
[15:00] Lynnwood: so we'll not CDot objection but hold it.
[15:00] Lynnwood: s/not/note
[15:00] PeterThoeny: crawford: in the topic, could you list the scripts that need update and work with developers to find owners?
[15:00] Lynnwood: sounds like Peter's first objection is also an implementation question.
[15:01] Lavr: Let us let CDot write the steps and then the implementation depends on available resources. The important is that this difficult issue has found a solution all can live with.
[15:01] Lynnwood: On Peter's second objection
[15:01] Lynnwood: ...
[15:02] Soronthar: PeterThoeny: 2. how can we minimize plugin divergence between main and develop
[15:02] PeterThoeny: no, my first question is more on core code
[15:02] Lynnwood: Peter - is this concern a reason for blocking the proposal - or is it something you'd like to keep in mind and discuss while moving forward?
[15:02] PeterThoeny: who is going to be the patch monkey?
[15:03] PeterThoeny: or in other words, who is going to merge changes from develop to main?
[15:03] PeterThoeny: all developers?
[15:03] CDot: the people who make the changes do the merge, in general
[15:03] PeterThoeny: one/two owners?
[15:03] CDot: which is why you see two checkins for bugfixes
[15:03] CDot: as people keep both branches up to date
[15:04] PeterThoeny: but rigt now develop and twiki4 are quite out of sync
[15:04] Lavr: People in general has been merging pretty well. TWiki4 branch can become main as is. And develop remains develop. Right?
[15:04] Soronthar: at some point, instead of mergeing DEVELOP to MAIN, DEVELOP should just replace the core code in MAIN.
[15:04] PeterThoeny: so it might not be that trivial to do the merge
[15:04] CDot: are they?
[15:04] Soronthar: because the codebase can diverge a lot.
[15:04] CDot: are they out of synch?
[15:05] PeterThoeny: all the tag (aka variable) changes
[15:05] Soronthar: from TWiki4->DEVELOP?
[15:05] CDot: yes, but we hardly expect to see those in TWiki4
[15:05] PeterThoeny: twiki4 will be main
[15:05] CDot: the important thing is that TWiki4 bugfixes also get into DEVELOP
[15:05] PeterThoeny: and at some point we'd want to move develop code into main
[15:06] CDot: yes, and we need to track that all bugs are still fixed
[15:06] PeterThoeny: i am more talking about major code changes
[15:06] CDot: unfortunately there is still a lot of resistance to generating testcases and unit tests
[15:06] CDot: why would there be major code changes on MAIN?
[15:06] CDot: it is a maintenance branch
[15:06] PeterThoeny: no, major code changes in develop that you want to carry into main
[15:07] CDot: it should only take bugfixes
[15:07] PeterThoeny: may i miss something then
[15:07] CDot: but then develop and main synch at that time, yes?
[15:07] PeterThoeny: what happens before twiki 5 release?
[15:07] PeterThoeny: merge develop into main?
[15:08] CDot: I doubt it, personally, until we are ready to do TWiki-5
[15:08] Soronthar: the way that it usually works is: Main receives bugfixes and minor features, DEVELOP has the bleeding edge stuff. At some point, when DEVELOP is stable enough, it becomes MAIN.
[15:08] CDot: exactly
[15:08] Drusilla: At some point 4.0 is essentially frozen
[15:08] Drusilla: And then main becomes 4.1. Or vice versa
[15:08] CDot: compare with Debian
[15:09] PeterThoeny: this means all plugins are frozen and we start from scratch?
[15:09] CDot: huh?
[15:09] Lavr: The easiest is probably to develop DEVELOP till stability and then when we RELEASE TWiki5 - that becomes Main. And old main is frozen as the last TWiki4 tag
[15:09] Lavr: Except Plugins!!!
[15:09] * CDot is totally confused; Raf's proposal covered all of this.....
[15:10] * PeterThoeny is confused now too
[15:10] Drusilla: Yes. Why are we rehashing all of it?
[15:10] Drusilla: We agreed to Raf's proposal last week. He rewrote the topic.
[15:10] Lynnwood: well, it sounds like to me that the concern/objection being raised is a ways out on the horizon...
[15:10] CDot:   Extensions authors should check in only in the MAIN branch for their normal work.   If the extension developer wants to maintain different code for an extension in both MAIN and DEVELOP, it is his/her responsibility to merge the changes across the branches.   Patches to MAIN must be merged across to DEVELOP   A new major version is released:   by creating a new branch for the last release, and copying MAIN across to it,   by copying the 
[15:10] Drusilla: If what he wrote matches what we agreed to, no issue
[15:10] * Soronthar is confused at all the confusion
[15:11] * CDot goes for another glass of wince
[15:11] CDot: wine
[15:11] Lavr: We are trying to clarify that we understand RAfs proposal properly for the core code part. The plugins part stands pretty clear to me.
[15:11] Drusilla: both
[15:11] Lynnwood: So the real question for today is...
[15:11] PeterThoeny: i get it for core now
[15:11] PeterThoeny: but i do not get it for extensions
[15:11] Lynnwood: whether these objections are such that we should not move forward on the proposal -- as a direction.
[15:12] Lynnwood: and these matters will continue to be mulled over as we go forward.
[15:12] PeterThoeny: if develop gets the main at twiki 5 what happens to the extension?
[15:12] Drusilla: We agreed to Raf's proposal last week
[15:12] Soronthar: Developers must move their extensions from DEVELOP to MAIN, if required. Also, Developers must update their extensions in MAIN to work with the new codebase
[15:12] Lynnwood: Dru - i'm sorry, i didn't know that. 
[15:13] Drusilla: So this should be a *very* short discussion
[15:13] Drusilla: (not blaming you, Lynnwood, as you weren't here)
[15:13] Lavr: As _I_ understand it - the general rule is that Plugins are in Main ONLY. And those exceptions where plugins can only exist in TWiki5 - like Merediths tags - live in DEVELOP.
[15:13] Drusilla: Just pointing it out for all and sundry
[15:13] CDot: Extensions are no different from the core, as far as the release process is concerned
[15:13] Lynnwood: but i could have read it...
[15:13] PeterThoeny: rafael: yes, that is what i understood, good so far
[15:13] CDot: they are only different from the perspective of extensions developers
[15:13] CDot: who are encouraged to always work on MAIN
[15:14] Drusilla: Unless they're tags
[15:14] CDot: their work will of course be merged to DEVELOP before any merge from develop -> main
[15:14] PeterThoeny: the confusion i have is that at the time develop branch is re-christened to be the main branch we freeze the plugins in the old main
[15:14] CDot: always merge out before you merge in; basic SCM practice
[15:14] PeterThoeny: not waht we want
[15:14] CDot: no, no,no
[15:14] CDot: the develop branch remains the develop branch
[15:15] CDot: the TWikiRelease04x00 branch becomes the MAIN branch
[15:15] Lynnwood: OK. The question i have now is how much time we want to continue an open discussion on this subject?
[15:15] * Drusilla votes none
[15:15] Lynnwood: as we don't seem to be addressing blocking objectives.
[15:15] Lynnwood: objections.
[15:16] Lavr: When TWiki5 gets released the core in Main becomes the TWiki5 code right? And those plugins that only existed in DEVELOP can then move to Main which is then their primary place to live now that they work with Main.
[15:16] Lynnwood: or to put it another way: what is our objective for this discussion, this afternoon?
[15:16] Lavr: (that was a clarification question)
[15:16] Soronthar: Lavr: Yes
[15:16] PeterThoeny: that was my original understanding, yes
[15:17] PeterThoeny: then i got confused that the devlop branch gets into the main branch
[15:17] PeterThoeny: if this is not the case, ok
[15:17] PeterThoeny: rafael: my confusion is from your statement: "At some point, when DEVELOP is stable enough, it becomes MAIN."
[15:18] Soronthar: sorry
[15:18] Soronthar: it's "copied" to MAIN
[15:18] PeterThoeny: ok, that is good then
[15:18] Lavr: Merged to I guess is the right term
[15:18] Lynnwood: ok
[15:18] PeterThoeny: and brings the original question of who does the merge
[15:19] Soronthar: brb
[15:19] PeterThoeny: where crawford answered the developer who did the change
[15:19] Lynnwood: That sounds like a similar "implementation" question - only further out in the future.
[15:19] PeterThoeny: ok, sorry for taking up the time
[15:20] Lynnwood: how about: it is done by whoever is working on TWiki 5 release?
[15:20] Lynnwood: because it seems like that question comes up when we actually start planning the next major release...
[15:21] CDot: it's already stated in Raf's proposal.
[15:21] CDot: when that becomes the process documentation, then it's clear for all.
[15:21] Lynnwood: ok
[15:21] Soronthar: can we move on?
[15:21] Lynnwood: i think so.
[15:21] PeterThoeny: ok, i am fine with point 1
[15:21] Lynnwood: is there anything else on this item
[15:21] Lynnwood: ?
[15:22] PeterThoeny: point 1: "who is doing the merge between develop and main"
[15:22] Soronthar: the buildmeinster
[15:22] PeterThoeny: what about pint 2. "how can we minimize plugin divergence between main and develop"
[15:23] Soronthar: that's outside the scope of managing branches.
[15:23] Lynnwood: My question on point 2: is this something to be discussed this afternoon?
[15:23] PeterThoeny: pint of beer :-)
[15:23] Drusilla: This is not on the agenda
[15:23] Soronthar: but as Lavr pointed out
[15:23] Lavr: If DEVELOP is stable and RCs have been tested from it - the merge is ONE command. Just one huge merge. As long as people keep on double checking in bugfixes like today.
[15:23] PeterThoeny: s/pint/point/
[15:23] ArthurClemens: have to go again: need to be early at work and not too tired because of a client review
[15:23] CDot: PeterThoeny: are you wanting to dictate terms of engagement to plugins authors?
[15:23] Soronthar: by enforcing the "one branch for plugins" we cover a lot of ground
[15:23] ArthurClemens: 0:23 already
[15:24] CDot: e.g. you could say "you are not allowed to diverge"?
[15:24] ArthurClemens: night all
[15:24] *** ArthurClemens has left #twiki_edinburgh.
[15:24] PeterThoeny: bye artur
[15:24] CDot: otherwise you cannot discourage divergence
[15:24] PeterThoeny: crawford: no, not like this
[15:24] CDot: developers will decide themselves if it is necessary
[15:24] Lynnwood: i can see by the response that this question calls up a number of external discussions that seem beyond this afternoons meeting.
[15:24] PeterThoeny: all i am asking for is "how can we _minimize_ plugin divergence between main and develop"
[15:25] Drusilla: Authors being responsible. 
[15:25] CDot: we are already doing everything necessary
[15:25] CDot: if you see it as a problem, raise it when it happens
[15:25] Lynnwood: Peter - are you asking that as a discussion you want to pursue this afternoon?
[15:25] Soronthar: only Core developers are allowed in DEVELOP. We should trust ourselves
[15:25] Soronthar: anyway, I vote to take this discussion to Codev
[15:25] Drusilla: Seconded
[15:25] Lavr: I think the proposal is already doing that. And if our scripts are made so you can run develop with plugins from Main then THAT will encourage ONE branch when possible
[15:26] PeterThoeny: what i am concerned is that the biggest leaps happen in develop, so naturally new plugins are done there
[15:26] CDot: I think it's moot; the way to do that is through strong documentation
[15:26] CDot: that helps the developers
[15:26] PeterThoeny: i see it seems to be a moot point to discuss this further
[15:27] Lavr: As long as DEVELOP can run from SVN checkout AND Main checkout with pseudo-install then the diversion will not be encouraged like it is today
[15:27] CDot: at this time of the day, yes
[15:27] CDot: please, let's move on
[15:27] * CDot is running out of wine
[15:27] CDot: ;-)
[15:27] Lynnwood: ok. i see on last item:
[15:27] * Drusilla is going to start whining due to lack of wine
[15:27] PeterThoeny: so no wish / help in minimizing the divergence
[15:28] Lynnwood:  4. TWiki.org backup documentation / Codev refactoring /FAQ (X minutes)
[15:28] PeterThoeny: lets move on
[15:28] Lynnwood: O
[15:28] Lynnwood: how much more time are folks willing to continue.
[15:29] Lynnwood: i can give maybe 15 minutes
[15:29] CDot: I would like an answer on this
[15:29] PeterThoeny: we are at 90 min now
[15:29] CDot: however brief
[15:29] Lynnwood: ok
[15:29] Lynnwood: I'm afraid i don't understand the topic
[15:29] CDot: has the re-org of the doc on t.o. been abandoned?
[15:29] CDot: I have seen no progress
[15:29] PeterThoeny: not abandoned, just not started
[15:30] CDot: I'm concerned that people are still being led down blind alleys
[15:30] PeterThoeny: crawford: could you explain what outcome you expect from thsi meeting?
[15:30] * PeterThoeny is confused on "backup documentation"
[15:30] Lynnwood: and CDot, your concern is that you do not know where to post docs?
[15:30] CDot:   Desired outcome: A plan of action, and some commitment from DocumentationFocusGroup participants      
[15:31] PeterThoeny: we can't create a plan of action at this meeting
[15:31] Drusilla: I added one small agengda sub-item
[15:31] Lynnwood: ok do we have enough members of that group present and are they prepared to answer?
[15:31] CDot: My concern is that people looking for support still can't find it
[15:31] PeterThoeny: this is up to the doc team to do
[15:31] CDot: yes
[15:31] CDot: agreed
[15:31] Lavr: I have personally been hit by an unusual amount of problems at work the past weeks so I have not spent as much time on OSS as I wanted to.
[15:32] PeterThoeny: my high prio at the moment is twiki.org upgrade to twiki 4
[15:32] CDot: understood; and no problem with either of those
[15:32] PeterThoeny: that preempts navigation
[15:32] CDot: all I want to know is *when* something is going to happen
[15:32] Drusilla: So users will continue to be left twisting in the wind
[15:32] CDot: so I can tell people "it's all be over by XMas"
[15:33] PeterThoeny: i see the half glass full, not empty: there are many people how help in the support web; there are people who help in supplemental docs
[15:33] CDot: this has been an open topic for *months* now
[15:33] Lynnwood: so you're raising the concern again...
[15:33] CDot: I have expressed willingness to help, but I *need a framework* which has been promised many times
[15:33] CDot: how hard can it be?
[15:34] CDot: I do *not* want to do something unilaterally!!!
[15:34] PeterThoeny: crawford: the framework is defined for quite some time
[15:34] Lynnwood: there is a framework at present for organizing supplemental docs.
[15:34] Soronthar: SupportTopic et al=
[15:34] PeterThoeny: and it needs some review/improvements
[15:34] Soronthar: ?
[15:34] Lynnwood: which could be improved but it exist.
[15:34] Drusilla: Many people can't find what they're looking for. Many many people.
[15:34] CDot: including me!
[15:34] PeterThoeny: but for now, by all means, if you want to help, please write more/better code docs and also supplemental docs
[15:35] Drusilla: So if there's a framework, it doesn't work
[15:35] CDot: but *where*!!!!!!
[15:35] Soronthar: That's the key point
[15:35] Soronthar: we sould gather everything in TWiki web?
[15:35] PeterThoeny: twiki.org homepage > documentation
[15:35] Soronthar: work in Codev and then move it?
[15:35] PeterThoeny: (Link: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/WebHome)http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/WebHome
[15:36] CDot: I don't want to solve it here
[15:36] CDot: I want to hear that it *will* be solved
[15:36] CDot: within my lifetime
[15:36] Drusilla: that's not an answer, Peter
[15:36] CDot: please!
[15:36] Soronthar: there are two issues here
[15:36] Drusilla: People can't find things. And when they do, they don't understand them
[15:36] Soronthar: one: Where to work in the docs
[15:36] PeterThoeny: i am addressing the question: "how can i help in the mean time"
[15:36] Soronthar: two: How to make people actually finding the docs
[15:37] Soronthar: So, as a rule, everything should go in TWiki web?
[15:37] Drusilla: three: how not to waste our time
[15:37] PeterThoeny: how: a logical navigation structure starting from (Link: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/WebHome)http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/WebHome
[15:37] Soronthar: Can I start to move all the howtos, cookbook and recipes from Codev to TWiki?
[15:37] CDot: I guess so
[15:38] CDot: we need to chop down the Windows cookbooks, especially
[15:38] PeterThoeny: rafael: no, content can be anywhere, but it should be accessible by a logical navigation from the doc home
[15:38] PeterThoeny: check ou the supplemental doc topics and you will see
[15:38] Soronthar: no,no,no,no,no,no,no
[15:38] CDot: as there are multiple conflicting
[15:38] CDot: documentation is not enough; *search* is required
[15:38] PeterThoeny: it seems to me not many developers look at the supplemental docs, and do not link to it from the official docs
[15:38] Soronthar: is not where they are, is where should I put them so they can be easily found whutout me requiring to update a link
[15:39] CDot: you have to expect people do *not* know what to look for
[15:39] CDot: but will search for keywords
[15:39] PeterThoeny: anyway, should we dicuss this here further, or let the doc team meet?
[15:39] CDot: please, meet, and tell us what to do
[15:39] Drusilla: Do you have an estimate on *when* you'll meet?
[15:39] PeterThoeny: i agree on this one
[15:40] CDot: strike while the iron is hot; this is a lovely week for meetings
[15:40] PeterThoeny: the doc team will let you know the "when"
[15:40] Drusilla: And apparently we are left with nowhere good to put new documents until you come up with a plan
[15:41] Lynnwood: you can link them to supplemental docs for now.
[15:41] Soronthar: can we settle for an interim solution?
[15:41] PeterThoeny: again: no, not like this. please start with the supplemental docs
[15:41] PeterThoeny: there is no need to wait
[15:41] Drusilla: So everything should become a supplemental document?
[15:41] Soronthar: like.. put all the docs in TWiki web and put the proper header so they are picked by the gateways topic?
[15:41] PeterThoeny: just add links in the supplemental docs!
[15:41] Soronthar: Drusilla: For the time being, yes
[15:41] CDot: then how do searches work?
[15:41] * CDot is confused
[15:41] Soronthar: is not  search?!
[15:41] Lynnwood: or if you want to work on refactoring the core docs, that would be ok also, would it not?
[15:42] Lavr: Navigation is not search.
[15:42] Lynnwood: in other words, editing and improving them, if yuo have time and inclination.
[15:42] Drusilla: Who are you addressing, lynnwood
[15:42] Lynnwood: anyone who is asking where they can contribut to docs.
[15:42] PeterThoeny: all supplemenatl docs do not need to be in the twiki web
[15:42] CDot: look, all I want is a searchable documentation resource, for users out in the real world
[15:42] PeterThoeny: thay can be in the codev web, plugins web
[15:42] Drusilla: And Codev isn't it.
[15:43] PeterThoeny: the important think is to identify topics and link to it from appropriate supplemental doc topics
[15:43] Lynnwood: they have as much as MOST other projects provide in the TWiki web in their distribution.
[15:43] Soronthar: ok. then an interin suggestion: Put everything on the TWiki web, put the proper header and let the gateway topic pick it up
[15:43] Soronthar: PeterThoeny: That won't scale
[15:44] CDot: Soronthar: interim solution sould sensible enough to me
[15:44] PeterThoeny: 'xactly
[15:44] CDot: though i would have preferred support web
[15:44] PeterThoeny: anything else?
[15:44] Soronthar: I said TWiki because that's where the gateways are
[15:44] * Drusilla is confused
[15:45] CDot: ok, let me summarise.
[15:45] Drusilla: People can't find out what they need now. I don't see any solutions to that above.
[15:45] CDot: 1. Documentation team (who is it BTW?) will tell us when they plan to meet
[15:45] Lavr: No matter what web things end in - there are plenty of support questions and codev topics that try to say the same thing that can be refactored into ONE uptodate topic linked from Supplemental docs. Just refactor them in the web where they are. That is 98% of the work anyway.
[15:45] Lynnwood: and i say they can find stuff as well or better than they can on the discussion boards in most other projects.
[15:46] CDot: 2. *New* FAQs etc will be raised in TWiki web
[15:46] Drusilla: Or, as someone else put it the other day, "we suck less bad than other projects"
[15:46] CDot: 3. *Existing* topics will be refactored where they lie
[15:46] Lynnwood: thank you CDot.
[15:46] CDot: so, no searchable solution this time round
[15:47] Soronthar: 3. ... and linked from the proper gateway in TWiki web
[15:47] Lynnwood: good sumary.
[15:47] PeterThoeny: more or less good summary
[15:47] PeterThoeny: add this:
[15:47] Drusilla: So, essentially, status quo
[15:47] Soronthar: status quo + point 2
[15:47] Lynnwood: although it does point to expanding the base of searchable docs
[15:47] PeterThoeny: 4. link to doc topics from appropriate supplemenatl doc topics and from core docs
[15:47] PeterThoeny: 5. tag content
[15:48] PeterThoeny: point 4 and 5 is is important to browse to content, e.g. find content
[15:48] PeterThoeny: creating doc islands does not work
[15:49] Drusilla: Creating small sets of easily navigatable, searchable docs *does* work
[15:49] Drusilla: Status quo *doesn't* work
[15:49] Lynnwood: then Drusilla - get back in the doc team
[15:50] * Soronthar ponders.
[15:50] Drusilla: I don't agree with the solutions that the team seems to prefer
[15:50] PeterThoeny: all folks who would like to help on improving the docs: please take some time to review the supplemental doc structure, help improve the structure, and help add links to it
[15:51] Lynnwood: do we have more discussion on this item this afternoon?
[15:51] PeterThoeny: not from me
[15:51] Drusilla: Excuse me. Help improve the structure even though the DocGroup is planning on deciding the strcuture?
[15:51] Drusilla: And, yes, I have one small item on the agenda
[15:51] Soronthar: Desired outcome: A plan of action, and some commitment from DocumentationFocusGroup participants
[15:52] Soronthar: do we have any of this?
[15:52] Drusilla: No
[15:52] CDot: yes. We have both of those.
[15:52] PeterThoeny: i can't  decide for the doc team on a plan of action and time frame
[15:52] Soronthar: Plan of action: Your summary, and wait for th Doc group
[15:52] Drusilla: So no, we don't have a commitment
[15:52] Soronthar: Commitment: they commit to find a time to decide when they can commit
[15:53] PeterThoeny: we have the "how you can help in the interim"
[15:53] Drusilla: rinse and repeat
[15:53] Lynnwood: it was an unfair expectation to put them on the spot if they have not met and expect them to provide that in the moment.
[15:53] Soronthar: I agree.. it's a pitty that Arthur had to leave early (or late for him)
[15:53] Drusilla: If things gate on a group, then it's fair to ask if the group has made progress or wil make progress in the forseeable future
[15:54] CDot: I'm just concerned that this has been hanging on for a long, long time
[15:54] CDot: and we are still suffering confused and lost users, who could be self-helped
[15:54] CDot: if only they could find the docs. :-(
[15:55] Drusilla: Which consumes the time of developers, etc.
[15:55] Soronthar: we should check in two or three meetings the progress of the Doc group.
[15:55] Lavr: I want to emphasize my priority: 1. Family, 2. Daytime job, 3 Open Source. And I have had extra long hours lately + weekend because of problems with my priority 2. The little time I have for Twiki I use for testing 4.0.3
[15:55] PeterThoeny: i see the glass half full: people help link to docs from supplemental docs
[15:55] Soronthar: I see a broken glass: the water is all spilled around the floor
[15:56] Drusilla: I can only speak for myself, but I think you're pretty much alone in that, Peter
[15:56] Soronthar: and it's not an easy task to put it back in another glass
[15:56] Drusilla: Well, I guess I can speak for Raf and me ;)
[15:56] PeterThoeny: get a new glass, full it up, and enjoy it :-)
[15:56] Drusilla: You refused to make a new glass
[15:56] Lynnwood: At almost every level, TWiki provides more docs than most projects. 
[15:56] Lynnwood: it's a huge task to reorganize it.
[15:56] Drusilla: And the longer things drag on, the worse it gets
[15:57] Lynnwood: and most projects simply send users to completely unorganizes discussion forumns. 
[15:57] PeterThoeny: frankly, i do not agree that we have "absymal docs"
[15:57] Soronthar: let's get back to this in another meeting. We're not getting anywhere
[15:57] Lynnwood: The mere fact that we aspire to more than that says alot about the community.
[15:57] PeterThoeny: i get overall good feedback on the docs
[15:57] Soronthar: Abtsmal in the sense that they are in a deep black hole where they can't be found.
[15:57] Lynnwood: I believe we're about wrapped
[15:57] Drusilla: Uh, no. one more small item
[15:57] PeterThoeny: yep, lets wrap up
[15:57] Lynnwood: yes?
[15:58] Drusilla: Which *is* on the agenda
[15:58] Soronthar: FWIW, I manage to install TWiki the first time (Beijing) using the install doc.
[15:58] * Soronthar waits for Dru
[15:58] Lynnwood: i'm sorry, Dru. I'm not seeing it.
[15:58] Drusilla: I don't think it's a good practice to link from official documents and such to proposals.
[15:58] Drusilla: Guidelines for official documentation and entry topics such as ReadmeFirst regarding proposals, opinions, and other "unofficial" content.
[15:59] Drusilla: It confuses people and suggests that items under discussion or opinions are official
[15:59] Soronthar: I agree with Dru on that point. Some of our discussion can scare new people
[15:59] Lynnwood: ok, so that is a recommended change?
[15:59] Drusilla: I have occasionally tried to factor those things out, but the changes have been undone
[15:59] Soronthar: hmm... got to go... see you all tomorow
[16:00] Lynnwood: I'm still trying to find that in the agenda.
[16:00] PeterThoeny: that is not an issue if the topic under discussion is marked as "discussion"
[16:00] PeterThoeny: it's all about writing with the end user in mind
[16:01] Drusilla: Yes, and Codev discussions aren't aimed at the end user
[16:01] CDot: I have had some experience of that; "I was going to do that, but the discussion scared me off"
[16:01] Drusilla: (for the most part)
[16:01] CDot: but that's because we don't refactor aggressively enough
[16:01] Drusilla: "A TWikiAppPackage is a proposed standard for packaging and distributing TWikiApplications and components"
[16:01] Lynnwood: admittedly, there are some problems users come up against that the only available "hints' for them are in discussions in Codev...
[16:02] Drusilla: That doesn't belong in Plugins.ReadmeFirst
[16:02] PeterThoeny: yes, because the way we conduct our dicussions, not because of the topic per se
[16:02] Drusilla: A proposed standard isn't an official standard.
[16:02] Drusilla: Documents describing official standards should stick to that.
[16:02] Drusilla: Until and if the proposal is agreed to
[16:03] CDot: sorry, I'm too tired to follw this any further
[16:03] CDot: goodnight, all. Thanks for a good meeting!
[16:03] *** CDot has left #twiki_edinburgh.
[16:03] PeterThoeny: and i will marinade the pork for our bbq tonight
[16:03] Lynnwood: thank you CDot
[16:04] PeterThoeny: can we wrap up?
[16:04] Lynnwood: oh, i want in on that Peter!
[16:04] PeterThoeny: with tasty german weisswurst
[16:04] Drusilla: Since I'm the only one who seems to care that standards should be agreed to first, I guess so.
[16:04] Lynnwood: i believe so. Dru's concern is noted.
[16:04] Lynnwood: i believe it is more complex than you want it presented.
[16:05] Lynnwood: but the principle is sound.
[16:05] Lynnwood: did you want something more on that item?
[16:05] Drusilla: Something on the order of "yes, the principle is sound" from more than just you, I guess.
[16:06] Drusilla: And "we should try to stick to that principle"
[16:06] Lynnwood: I doubt that would have been a reasonable expectation a this point in the meeting and day.
[16:06] Drusilla: I didn't expect some of the previous items to go on as long as they did
[16:07] Lynnwood: but sorry if that's what you wanted and are disappointed.
[16:07] Lynnwood: OK, i think we're wrapped.
[16:07] Lynnwood: Dru - i'll share a couple of additional thoughts in a minute.
[16:08] Lynnwood: back in #twiki
[16:08] Drusilla: OK. Love to hear them. (Seriously)
[16:08] PeterThoeny: ok, thanks all for participating, thanks lynnwood for the nice facilitation, and thanks kenneth for the minutes :-)
[16:08] PeterThoeny: 120 min this time
[16:08] Lynnwood: yep
[16:08] Lavr: Minutes are done. I will proof read after a night of sleep. and upload the log.
[16:08] Lynnwood: thanks to everyone!
[16:08] Lynnwood: thanks Lavr!!
[16:08] PeterThoeny: cheers!
[16:18] *** Lavr has left #twiki_edinburgh.
[16:26] *** HaraldJoerg has signed off IRC ("Connection reset by beer").
[16:31] *** Flenser has signed off IRC ("(-_-)zzz").
[18:01] *** You have been disconnected. Mon May 15 18:01:47 2006.