Session Start: Mon Jan 21 22:00:21 2008 Session Ident: #twiki_release [22:00] * Now talking in #twiki_release [22:00] * Topic is 'http://develop.twiki.org/~twiki4/cgi-bin/view/Bugs/ReleaseBlocker' [22:00] * Set by PeterThoeny on Mon Jan 07 22:13:25 [22:00] Hello everybody [22:00] * rodbeckstrom has joined #twiki_release [22:00] hi [22:00] * LarsEik has joined #twiki_release [22:00] heyho [22:01] * ArthurClemens has joined #twiki_release [22:01] hi Carlo and all! [22:01] * CDot has a large glass of good malt whisky, so is ready for a really mellow meeting :-) [22:01] hi rod [22:01] hi all [22:01] hi [22:01] * SopanShewale has joined #twiki_release [22:02] CDot: any particular brand? [22:02] ArthurClemens: Talisker [22:02] hi arthur, carlo, crawford, koen, harald, lars, kenneth, oliver, rod, sopan, sven [22:02] * uebera|| has joined #twiki_release [22:02] Talisker gets my vote too [22:02] good turnout today! [22:02] Yes. Wondeful. [22:02] Talisker, don't know that one [22:02] i guess everybody would like to see 4.2 released asap [22:02] * OliverKrueger only has Coke. [22:02] Isle of Skye's finest [22:02] * DavidAllen has joined #twiki_release [22:02] rodbeckstrom: Isle of Skye's only ;-) [22:02] My Glendronach supply is gone, so today it's just a Blackstone [22:03] * eset has joined #twiki_release [22:03] * ArthurClemens has a malt colored cup of tea [22:03] Lagavulin....I wish.. [22:03] hi, Adam from FLOSS Manuals checking in [22:03] * Lynnwood has joined #twiki_release [22:04] * peterthoeny has quit IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) [22:04] hi adam, nice to see you here! [22:04] :) [22:05] well, got to pop in every now and again [22:05] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/FreetownReleaseMeeting2008x01x21 [22:05] who is facilitating today, who is taking the minutes? [22:05] I am catching up on the minutes [22:06] thanks [22:06] i can facilitate unless someone else would like to [22:06] proposed agenda: [22:06] # 1. Decision on GuideLinesLinkingThirdPartyDistributions [22:06] # 2. Review Urgent Bugs [22:06] # 3. Coordinate TWiki Release 4.2 [22:07] anything that should be added? [22:07] if not, lets get started [22:08] ---++ 1. Decision on GuideLinesLinkingThirdPartyDistributions [22:08] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/GuideLinesLinkingThirdPartyDistributions [22:08] kenneth, do you want to summarize? [22:09] I raised this to try to move forward after all the debate there has been lately. [22:09] I started with the items that are urgent for our release. [22:09] for those who have not followed the discussion, glance also over http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/RevisitingDecisionNotToAllowLinkingToExternalTWikiDistros [22:09] And I tried to get different peoples needs and oppinions represented. [22:09] I raised two topics. [22:10] One is for linking to 3rd party distributions of TWiki. [22:10] The other for recognising our sponsors. [22:10] which is http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/GuideLinesSponsorPresenceOnTWikiDotOrg [22:11] The idea is - if we agree on these rules - then there is no more to argue about. [22:12] All rules in our community can always be changed later but I propose that we start with these for 4.2.0. [22:12] as proposed, twiki.net will not be able to link [22:13] in any case i support whatever the community feels is the right thing to do [22:13] that does not make sense [22:13] I am not at ease with logos in the left bar [22:13] as written "No links to older versions (confusing otherwise - if I am on a 4.2.1 download page then I get 4.2.1)" [22:13] Yes you will. But as sponsor instead. [22:14] I have to agree; I think that's an excessive restriction. [22:14] The logos in the left bar would only be for the server related sponsers. [22:14] this is the navigation area [22:14] a value-add might apply to a different version; doesn't make it any the less valuable, does it? [22:14] it is not good as it is now, but will be worse with logos [22:14] actually, I agree with Kenneth that any distribution links on a page should be of the same version [22:15] for three reasons twiki.net will not have a link: 1. non-gpled installation program (installanywhere), 2. not ready with 4.2 release, 3. registration form [22:15] If you look at d.t.o we have had a link there always in the bottom of the left bar. For our server sponsor. Noone ever found this to be a problem. [22:15] or should not be a distribution, but a logo with a corporate link- per Cdot [22:15] ? [22:16] hang on a mo, I'm confused. Let's take these one at a time. Left bar sponsors first. [22:16] i think kenneth meant to distinguish between links to distributions and sponsors [22:16] agreed, just logos first :) [22:16] which is a vali point [22:16] I'm not concerned about left-bar sponsors, as long as there are clear guidelines [22:17] s/vali/valid/ [22:17] Left bar sponsers should only be for the sponser of the server hardware and hosting. I think they deserve this. But very very small gifs - no text. [22:17] leftbar sponsors are just server sponsors st the monent? [22:17] * ktwilight has joined #twiki_release [22:17] hi :) [22:18] Do we plan to have more (server) sponsors in the future? [22:18] what about other sponsors? e.g. if IBM suddenly gave us $1M worth of good malt whisky? [22:18] We change sponsors now. We have normally two. The hardware and the hosting. [22:18] hi kwang! nice turnout today [22:19] hi peter [22:19] CDot: Then we would be bickering about the brand [22:20] HaraldJoerg: Lagavullin, or I resign! ;-) [22:20] :-) [22:20] I vote Talisker! [22:20] good point though; other forms of sponsorship are more...... transitory [22:20] and can be recognised in a branded "thank you" way [22:21] yes, there are long time sponsors and one offs [22:21] If you all go to http://develop.twiki.org/~twiki4/cgi-bin/view/Bugs/WebHome and look at the left bar at the bottom. That is the thing we have today and therefore in my proposal. [22:22] * Lewisham has joined #twiki_release [22:22] Yes, and that's what others like search.cpan.org are having, too [22:22] looks OK to me. [22:22] its the same as on the t.d.o front page isnt it'? [22:23] Because as soon as you have no hosting and hardware, you're *off* [22:23] what about companies that are committed to support the community with marketing, dev projects, hosting, meetups and such? [22:23] See what others have. Like Gentoo have a sponsors link. [22:23] in the left bar is ok as long as there are enough items listed [22:24] not if we could clean up the left bar [22:24] though I am not fundamentally against [22:24] Left bar - I would only put the server sponsor because that is a long term commitment and a direct donation to the COMMUNITY. Not to single individuals [22:25] we could add a line "Sponsors:" (because it has nothing to do with the product TWiki) [22:25] The ones that pays the dollars for the hardware and for the bandwidth it cost to drive t.o and d.t.o [22:25] Yes, and because it is needed *every single day* [22:26] that's how it is today. so what is all the discussion for? [22:26] i'd like to point out that twiki.net secured a lot of hardware from sun [22:26] we need half a rack to host this, so hosting cost is considerable [22:26] Let us put names on. When we get the new servers and hosting the people that pay the actual bill for the servers and the bandwidth are? [22:27] Others use a small section in the bottom of the page to display hosting and servers. Like openoffice. [22:27] So many volunteers? [22:27] Lavr: as it looks now: sun for hardware (procured through twiki.net), hosting by twiki.net and plug and play tech center [22:27] so twiki.net's servers will be sponsoring t.o and d.t.o? [22:28] good point [22:28] sun hardeware donated by sun, procured by twiki.net, hosted by twiki.net and pnp [22:29] So it is 3 small logos either in left bar or bottom bar is also a possibility. [22:29] at this point we plan to move t.o from fastmetrics in san francisco to pnp in sunnyvale [22:29] we have not looked at d.t.o [22:29] ktwilight: AFAIK we haven't discussed d.t.o. i think it's currently on H/W funded by Peter [22:29] we can discuss this as well, there is enough hardware [22:29] hm, k, let's focus on t.o then [22:29] in which case, Peter, should we have a picture of your wife in the left bar? ;-) [22:29] Better than a picture of Peter! [22:30] na, better my sun with a high power rocket [22:30] easy there! [22:30] so once we got the hardware these companies will be named as sponsors in the leftbar along with their wifes [22:30] s/sun/son/ [22:30] no female sponsors? [22:30] eredith ;-) [22:31] (meredith) [22:31] ime check: +30 min (30 min left) [22:31] ArthurClemens: this is an equal opportunities project. The girls can have pictures of their wives as well. [22:31] If d.t.o stays on Fastservers then d.t.o has its logo and t.o has its own. Can we agree on this? Are the sizes OK? [22:31] fine by me. [22:31] ok [22:31] * PeterThoeny_ apologizes, the mac eats sometimes the first key [22:32] yep [22:32] ok [22:32] yep [22:32] ok [22:32] ok [22:32] Anyone else? [22:33] ok my me, although i'd have hoped to get a bit more exposure for twiki.net, which will bring more traffic to twiki.org as well (plan to grow the whole twiki ecosystem) [22:33] likewise here. We've done a lot of hard work to get $80K + in hardware and much in hosting... [22:33] we should have some credit to TWIKI.NET [22:33] * shoffmann has joined #twiki_release [22:34] for arranging for hardware etc-etc [22:34] Lets create a TWiki Sponors topic [22:34] guys, if you want something more, you're going to have to propose something.... [22:34] otherwise it's like feeding peanuts to an elephant [22:34] IF my proposal goes through then the TWiki.net presense on the download is not bad. [22:35] not quite an elephant :) we do appreciate the invitation to make a proposal [22:35] for alternative consideration [22:35] You will have a logo in the left bar (the hosting sponsorship) and a larger bullet + logo in the sponsor section of the actual release. [22:35] u got the logo in the leftbar plus u are mentioned on the download page [22:35] actually, as it stands kenneth, twiki.net would get a tiny logo somewhere down in the sidebar, which i do not really consider an exposure [22:36] but as i said, the community decides on this and i will yield [22:36] And when you get a 4.2.0 download you get a 3rd logo/link in the Downloads section [22:36] I would almost need my reading glasses for it [22:36] what would you want peter? [22:36] small point - to much scrolling required to see the logos [22:37] i'd like to get a resonably sized ad somewhere on the top [22:37] from my standpoint the Ubuntu model with Canonical would be ideal, [22:37] but _clearly_ marked as an add [22:37] do you have a link [22:37] yes... Ubuntu is good model [22:37] how about either a sponsors topic or further info about sponsors and contributors in a AboutTWiki topic [22:37] but that is perhaps not where we are as a community, which is understandable too - each community has its unique history [22:37] probably text only (like google ads) [22:38] I think there is a general consensus against large banners etc. Noone looks at banners anyway because banners are normally unrelated to content. [22:38] yes kenneth, that is understood now [22:38] hence text only ads [22:38] I think that you get a pretty good presense with 2 and later 3 links on the download page. I think you become pretty visible. [22:39] with our current layout there isn't really a place to put another logo in the top section [22:39] is there a link ti the ubuntu model you suggest? [22:39] http://www.ubuntu.com/ you can see multiple Canonical links on right [22:39] Lavr: as the download link proposal stands now, twiki.net would _not_ get a link becasue of the three reasons i pointed out earlier [22:40] Peter. That is why I say 2 now and later 3. I assume you will soon offer a 4.2.X solution. [22:40] rodbeckstrom: Ubuntu is a Canonical project that they have opened up to allow others in to contribute [22:40] the ubunto download page has an ad of the store: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download [22:40] fairer to compare to PostgreSQL [22:41] Lavr: what about the two other points: registration form and non-gpl installer? [22:41] yes, perhaps, I was just sharing one successful model [22:41] and i dont even see a canonical link at all [22:42] I have no problem with that Peter. The 3rd party can for my sake be a mix of proprietary and open source. That is the reason why the download is external anyway. [22:42] carlo: follow the "purchase" link on the ubuntu download page [22:42] The point for me is that a download link should lead to a download of the version the download topic is all about. [22:42] Lavr: so you re suggesting that the proposal as it stands should be amended? [22:43] so u want a separate page? [22:43] I think my proposal covers that Peter [22:43] im not i see how it covers that [22:43] may be i misunderstand, what about the reg form and non-gpl points? [22:43] we could give a little and let twiki.net have a bit more exposure for a short timeperiod now...time and bugs [22:44] RedHat is another successful example, although again, a different history [22:44] the proposal has no GPL restriction on external downloads [22:44] * CDot is puzzled where that came from [22:44] WHEN you have a 4.2.0 release available for download then you can link to it because it fits several of the criteria [22:44] The distribution is a pre-configured version of TWiki for a specific OS or other purpose. [22:44] The distribution is packaged with an installer. [22:45] The distribution is packaged as a virtual machine. [22:45] The distribution adds additional extensions such as skins, plugins 3rd party programs which have been tested and confirmed to work with TWiki. [22:45] but it violates the reg form and gpl part? [22:45] You fullfill all 4. And you only need to pass ONE [22:45] i am confused on these two parts [22:45] I think we shouldn't get hung up on the version, because older versions may be bundled with significant other value [22:46] (21:44:41) CDot: the proposal has no GPL restriction on external downloads [22:46] (21:44:50) ***CDot is puzzled where that came from [22:46] I did not add that [22:46] Lavr: the version or the GPL? [22:46] so time to remove that clause? [22:46] Who added that? [22:46] the gpl restriction of the external download [22:46] it applies *only* to the *main* download, as i read it [22:47] yes, and not to external downloads [22:47] "On the download page for a specific release the top section including the blue rounded corner box can only contain links to the current release of fully GPL open source (built from only TWiki's svn) downloads that are hosted on TWiki.org." [22:47] applies *only* to the top section, not to external d/ls [22:47] Someone added the things about the registration page. [22:47] which doesnt have to apply to other distros [22:48] ok, now it is clearm thank you [22:48] thanks Carlo [22:49] who is for the restriction on only current release? 1. for restriction; 2. no restriction [22:49] ? [22:49] If I am a customer that goes to download TWiki 4.2.0 then I should not be presented with links to 4.1.2. [22:49] let's make a quick poll [22:49] please state 1 or 2 [22:50] I'm ok with links to older versions that meet the other criteria, aslong as it's clear on the link. 2. [22:50] 2 - many virtual machine providers already contractually require this, and other companies too [22:50] 2 [22:50] what about a section called older releases? [22:50] I vote 2. It's not feasible to expect all d/l links to be the latest version, especially if it's close (time) to a new release... [22:50] 2 [22:50] 2 as long there is a clear seperation. [22:50] 2 - - many production sites require the old version and the new one does not add much value to them for long time [22:51] i vote for 2, for example, the debian vm distro is not up to date, but people would like to get started quickly [22:51] 2 is fine if it is clear [22:51] so there is a value to have ditros of different releases avaiable [22:51] 1 [22:51] yes its to be easy to see whether it is old or new version, then 2 [22:51] i'd say it is important to mark it clearly that a distro is not up to date [22:52] such as the twikiforwindowspersonal distro [22:52] defintily, otherwise I would opt for 1 [22:52] any more voices? [22:52] ditto. [22:52] and... we should all do our best to make sure we are supporting the most current release - to move TWiki forward [22:52] agreed, Rod. [22:52] es, that is the whole point, grow the twiki ecosystem [22:53] OK. I am a little minority but I am OK as long as the links are marked with the actual version. [22:53] yes.. agree to rod [22:53] what happened about the registration restriction? I assume there was a reason that was added? presumably to protect the identity of downloaders? [22:53] That means in practical that we will create the other section as an included topic. [22:53] It was me that wrote it and I remember now. [22:54] I meant that you should not land at a strange registration page. [22:54] It is OK that you pass registration as part of download. [22:54] a "strange" registration page?? :) [22:54] ah. i always register as Myles na Gopaleen anyway ;-) [22:55] Kenneth- actually my comments above were related to this topic- to install many Virtual Machine bundlings, the user has to register [22:55] Yes. If you follow a link to a download and you are taken to a different website - then it is bad user experience to be met by a registration form. [22:55] If the user has the choice to download the OS bundling with no registration- that's the free pass isn't it? [22:55] yeah, we've been getting a lot of those lately, Cdot -- are you outsourcing your fake registration projects to other people, too? [22:55] :) [22:55] DavidAllen: damn, you rumbled me! [22:56] ime check: +56 min [22:56] My proposal had nothing to do with registration as evil. It was thought of as pure navigation. twiki.net does not have this problem. [22:57] many thanks for clarifying Kenneth :) [22:57] * will_t1 has joined #twiki_release [22:57] This link would be the natural for you to add . http://twiki.net/pricing.html [22:57] so everybody happy with this outcome? [22:57] ok, so we seem to be in agreement on the download link policy [22:57] exactly Kenneth, thank you for clarifying [22:58] Then it is only the sponser linking. [22:58] i suggest to discuss & decide on the sponsor link question later [22:58] we need to decide on the twiki 4.2 release [22:58] now :-) [22:58] Well. If we are to release 4.2.0 then I would like a decison for 4.2.0 download page. [22:59] I have added the sponsors from an email from Crawford. And Sven added one more. [22:59] I think it is good behavior to treat sponsors well if you want more of them. [22:59] agreed [22:59] absolutely [23:00] * ktwilight_ has joined #twiki_release [23:00] Anyone has anything to add or do we just agree and vote [23:00] ? [23:00] i think we got an agreement on the link question [23:00] As I said from the beginning. We can revisit this again when we see how it goes. [23:00] i feel we should have one or two more weeks to digest the sponsor question [23:01] Yes. Link is no problem. modified so older revisions are allowed. [23:01] ok, next agenda item? [23:01] If we release 4.2.0 tomorrow - could happen! Then we need this settled. [23:01] Peter, we know you of old. "i feel we should have one or two more weeks to digest the sponsor question" means you disagree, and you want to sit on the question to make it go away, doesn't it? [23:02] we can keep the status quo of no link now, and add logos in one or two week when we decide on it [23:02] Peter- why not accept Kenneth's proposal on the logos and also CDot's invitation for us to talk to SUN and kibbutz on this end on what more if anything we propose the community to consider? [23:02] Have everyone looked at the download page? [23:02] Lavr: link? [23:03] * CDot is too lazy to go clicking [23:03] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiRelease04x02x00 [23:03] ta [23:03] loads slwly [23:03] I have already added the sponsor links. No logos. Just text [23:03] kenneth posted the sponsor policy yesterday [23:04] i do not want to evade the decision, i'd like to get other community members the opportunity to resond [23:04] s/resond/respond/ [23:04] maybe thats a good idea [23:04] * k2crux has joined #twiki_release [23:04] you aren;t going to find more than are in this meeting, apart from Sue and Sven [23:05] No. Because we are so many today we can make a decision. Unless someone is against. I cannot see TWIKI.NET should be against because this adds an additional link for you. [23:05] And Wikiring also gets good exposure. [23:06] if all feel that we do not need to give other community members' input i am fine with making a decision now [23:06] I'm sure if got the point right... do you guys want a logo insted of text? [23:06] Anyone have arguments against? Is it the right sponsors? [23:06] personally, not bothered [23:07] if we vote now i abstain from a vote, e.g. let the community decide [23:07] i think you should drop ILOG - they sponsored the Kupu version [23:08] Yes. If they did not sponsor the 4.2.0 editor then they are a past sponsor and should be removed. [23:08] sorry, what are we going to vote on? [23:08] would be more fair if there's a twiki topic that allows twiki community to vote. this meeting doesn't have a true representative of it, if you guys want to go for a strict definition. [23:08] ktwilight: there is no process for that. Who says what a quorum is? [23:08] how do we insure all the logos are about the same size and in alphabetical order? [23:08] at least this meeting can make a decision. [23:09] We use these meetings to make decisions. And we use next meeting to make a new decison if needed. [23:09] CDot.. you are in hurry [23:09] I just don't want to delay the 4.2.0 release because of this detail. [23:09] wiw, the feature proposal process has a two week window until it gets to a release meeting [23:09] s/wiw/fwiw/ [23:10] If we implement a new feature it is hard to revert two weeks of work. Here the links can be removed in 10 seconds and no animals were harmed. [23:10] I agree to CDot and Kenneth. [23:11] The page looks quite fine to me. [23:11] I have removed ILOG [23:11] I propose all sponsors are listed in alphabetical order [23:11] time check: +71 min [23:12] will_t1, then a more suitable would be a TWikiSponsors, and have an additional column on which twiki version they contributed. [23:12] fine with me [23:12] either we debate and decide now or we postpone [23:12] fine w/ me2 [23:12] how far are we on the release btw? [23:12] Let us make a vote scoped only for the 4.2.0 release. Revisit in two weeks. [23:12] personally i do not think i am informed enough to vote now [23:12] decide now. Let's not fail to make any more decisions. [23:12] do you want to spend another 30 min on refining the sponsor policy? [23:13] so if it is now i will abstain [23:13] Is the TWikiRelease04x02x00 sponsor section OK? [23:13] yes. [23:13] yes [23:13] yes [23:13] yes [23:13] yes [23:13] * ktwilight has quit IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) [23:13] yes [23:13] abstain (looks ok as a start) [23:14] * ktwilight_ don't really care :) [23:14] i don't quite understand why anyone would object to an alphabetical listing? [23:14] * k2crux has left #twiki_release ("Ex-Chat") [23:15] will_t1: no-one did object. We just ignored you ;-) [23:15] :-) [23:15] alphabetical is fine by me. [23:15] Is now alphabetical within each feature. [23:15] with me as well [23:15] okay, subject to having the right to propose something better [23:15] ok, we seem good to go for now with teh sponsor question [23:15] let's move on? [23:15] (my comment related to the overall vote, not order) [23:15] yup [23:16] do we have to discuss the order of a 4 items list? ;) [23:16] ---++ 2. Review Urgent Bugs [23:16] we could write a twiki app to deal with it [23:16] OliverKrueger: 2 items at a time, recursively [23:16] So for the minutes. We have decided to accept the current release topic for 4.2.0 and revisit the general sponsor proposal in two weeks. [23:17] I only want to discuss ONE bug today. Maybe two. [23:17] do it [23:17] Bugs:Item5263 [23:17] we announced the 4.2 release last wed, and are now addressing some showstopper bugs [23:17] The preview problem [23:18] To recap. [23:18] The preview feature works ok in IE. [23:18] In FF it works in Edit Raw. [23:18] And in FF it works in Wysiwyg as long as you have not touched the pickaxe. [23:19] If you preview from pickaxe edit OR you have pickaxed and return to Wysiwyg then previewing means that you loose everything if you go back. [23:19] as a workaround, what do you suggest? [23:19] data loss is a real issue [23:20] We can remove preview from Wysiwyg/Pickaxe. [23:20] We can javascript disable the preview button when you pickaxe. No idea how easy that is. [23:20] i can live with that restriction for 4.2.0, better than dataloss [23:20] pretty easy, as long as Arthur doesn't rename it [23:21] We can let the preview open in a new window and remove all the buttons from the preview window [23:21] twiki does not bump up the version on repeated saves, so a disabled preview is acceptable [23:21] * will_t1 has left #twiki_release [23:21] I personally never use Preview. [23:21] WYSIWYG + preview always seemed a bit pointless anyway [23:21] And as one colleague told me - why do I need Preview when I have Wysiwyg? [23:21] i used to use it a lot, now almost never [23:22] Why do you want a preview function if you are in Wysiwyg? [23:22] good point [23:22] CDot: exactly [23:22] ok, let's disable preview on wyswiyg [23:22] Agree. [23:22] Preview is almost a necessity for XXXXXXXXXX [23:22] * rodbeckstrom has quit IRC (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) [23:22] Harald please explain? [23:22] harald? [23:22] XXXXX = AUTOINC? [23:22] I like preview, including on wysiwyg. [23:22] * rodbeckstrom has joined #twiki_release [23:22] Yep. [23:22] I guess so [23:23] HaraldJoerg: why? [23:23] Preview - i have not seen any one using with WYSIWYG (talking about others) [23:23] TWiki creates the number on save, not on edit. So, if I edit a 10X, then save, then go back, I end up editing a 10X topic again which will get a new number [23:23] We saw this on d.t.o for bug items [23:23] we have a choice: spend time to fix the preview issue (aka release later), or disable preview and release in a day or two [23:24] disable [23:24] The long term right way would be that Preview screen has a button that takes you back to edit with your changes. [23:24] Disabling should be good enough [23:24] And not rely on the back [23:24] I am fine with disabling [23:24] we could create the preview page on the edit page using an iframe [23:24] I'd rather fix AUTOINC to lease the topic name [23:24] the idea is to disable preview now for 4.2.0 and re-enable it in 4.2.1 when we fix the actual issue [23:24] * OliverKrueger prefers disable [23:24] I'd be OK with temporarily disabling (to get the release out) as long as it is added back later [23:25] then you won't need to go back [23:25] like wordpress has [23:25] ArthurClemens: too crowded IMHO [23:25] disabling preview should be ok [23:26] crawford: the topic lease on edit has a drawback: people start and abandon edits, e.g. you'd have gaps in autoinc [23:26] best is to give in into something fast and easy to cut short on the release date. [23:26] the iframe would be at the very bottom [23:26] leases time out, so the gaps would be minimal. [23:26] disabling preview should be ok temporarily... but - would be required in future, e.g. if some one has plugin with different syntax.. it wont be supported by WYSIWYG [23:26] some wikis and bulletin boards have a preview at the bottom [23:27] anyway, it's a subject for feature debate [23:27] for now i'd do the minimal and safest thing to disable preview [23:27] anybody against disabling preview for 4.2.0? [23:28] OK we have a decision then. [23:28] :-) [23:28] A new clarifying questions. [23:28] ok [23:29] And comments. [23:29] decision day on dto... [23:29] Bugs:Item5218 - Wysiwyg editing often creates a bogus conflict and merge that destroys topic [23:29] For all I have tested I cannot reproduce this bug anymore after Sven fixed the code. [23:29] And with the preview disabled it is totally gone. [23:29] So that should not block release any longer [23:30] great job! [23:30] Bugs:Item5258 - Preview does not set ORIGINALREV and other values in edit.tmpl, so continuing from there has problems [23:30] excellent, great work kenneth and sven! [23:30] Yes Sven did a fine piece of work on that one. [23:31] 5258 isn't this fixed? I am a bit confused with this one. [23:31] http://develop.twiki.org/~twiki4/cgi-bin/view/Bugs/Item5258 [23:32] anybody has feedback on this one? [23:32] dunno. Need to ask Sven. [23:32] ok, any other items kenneth? [23:33] A few more [23:33] time check: +93 min [23:33] * CDot has run out of whisky :-( [23:33] * Bugs:Item5257 - TinyMCE pads bullets incl. "set" variables with trailing spaces breaking some plugins and TWiki apps. [23:33] CDot: Is this space a fix to the newline eating or is it just a bug? [23:33] no, I'm not touching that. I've fixed it at least 5 times already. [23:34] it's a gopher bug [23:34] OK. Let us leave it as it is. The few plugins that freak out should not be sensitive to that extra space anyway. [23:35] The most often recorded Bug in Motorola in the two trial weeks was HolidaylistPlugin does not work after Wysiwyg editing :-) [23:35] agreed to defer to 4.2.1, this is a bug admins will face, not so much the users [23:35] but I fixed the plugin. [23:35] LAST. [23:35] Bugs:Item4946 - urlDecode() not working for characters represented by Unicode code points [23:35] I thought you disabled the code? [23:35] There is a new proposed patch. I have decided to postpone to 4.2.1 before we try this again. [23:36] good idea [23:36] too risky [23:36] Any objections to that decision?' [23:36] Good. Then we are ONE step from release. Someone needs to remove the Preview button. [23:36] does that mean that multibyte chars no longer work? [23:36] And then I am ready to push the button and release. [23:37] Peter. Only multibyte entered as % format [23:37] Right Crawford? [23:37] this seems not the normal case, so i am ok with deferring the fix [23:37] I dare say that the implications of wide characters are not fully understood with regard to TMCE [23:38] Lavr: Item5263 closed. [23:38] especially as Perl bugs, browser bugs and charset settings will chime in [23:38] HaraldJoerg: I *think* it's a perl bug. Hard to be sure. [23:39] any other bugs items to discuss? [23:39] CDot: Yes, that's why I always wanted to know the *exact* perl version [23:39] are we ready after disabling the preview? [23:39] Then it is only a few doc updates like a fresh compilation of the fixes included in the release note [23:39] and fixing the release date in twikihistory and release notes [23:39] * DavidAllen has quit IRC ("Ex-Chat") [23:40] cool :) [23:40] so, we are done with the meeting? [23:41] time check: +100 min [23:41] Yes. The last point is then release in a few hours or one day. I can build the release. I do that every day. [23:41] But I will sleep now so it will be tomorrow. [23:41] * CDot is now known as EmptyWhiskyBottl [23:42] eset, LarsEik , Lewisham , shoffmann , uebera|| please state your twiki.org wikiname for record [23:42] LarsEik [23:42] ChrisFLewis [23:42] thanks all for participatingm this meeting had a record turnout! [23:42] MarkusUeberall [23:42] Lavr is KennethLavrsen in case anyone has doubt now. :-) [23:42] and thanks for staying focused on the subject matter [23:42] :-) [23:42] Cheers all. Sleep well. [23:43] Thanks to all for a very nice meeting. [23:43] * EmptyWhiskyBottl has left #twiki_release [23:43] thx Peter, Kenneth [23:43] good night... [23:43] * Lewisham has left #twiki_release [23:43] bye all! [23:43] Bye :) [23:43] bye [23:43] bye! :) [23:43] bye [23:43] * CarloSchulz has left #twiki_release [23:43] bye [23:43] FlascheLeer. ;) [23:43] * HaraldJoerg has left #twiki_release [23:43] g'nite [23:44] * uebera|| has left #twiki_release ("ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs)") [23:44] * SopanShewale has quit IRC ("ChatZilla 0.9.80 [Firefox 2.0.0.11/2007112718]") [23:44] * OliverKrueger has left #twiki_release ("Konversation terminated!") [23:45] * LarsEik has left #twiki_release ("Leaving") [23:45] AdamHyde [23:45] cu! [23:46] * eset has quit IRC ("Ex-Chat") Session Time: Tue Jan 22 00:00:00 2008