Session Start: Mon Jun 12 23:02:57 2006 Session Ident: #twiki_edinburgh [23:02] * Now talking in #twiki_edinburgh [23:03] Good evening [23:03] hi kenneth [23:03] Probably Sven should be taken off the "usually are present" list, since he never attends. [23:04] It is easier to copy and paste something which is there when I take minutes. [23:05] I know. It's just that that tiny bit is a fossil. [23:06] so, you're up for quarduplets Lavr? - gratz :-) [23:06] 5 [23:06] One new per day [23:06] Sven is here is spirit, and regrets that the antisocial hour makes it impossible for him to attend. [23:06] oijs? [23:06] yep, 7am down under right now [23:07] it is really difficult to find a time that is suitable for all [23:07] sven has been seen on irc at night time his time [23:08] possibly schedule the meeting a few hours earlier? [23:08] for next time? [23:08] would for example 4 hours earlier work for everyone here at the moment? [23:09] Would 3 am be an improvement for Sven? [23:09] Would work for me [23:09] he has been seen on irc at impossible times his time [23:09] Not for me - that's fixed "family" time. [23:09] this depends on the spirit in the community as well, for now not everyone is happy, probably impacting their motivation to turn up .. dialing the clockwork doesn't solve that I'm afraid [23:09] good point [23:10] this is excellent timing for me, but I'd probably make time if we moved the meeting [23:10] we have now +12 min [23:10] is lynnwood going to attend? [23:12] i think it is time to start [23:12] yep [23:12] lynnwood is not here; who is facilitating? [23:13] I am already on the minutes [23:13] cool, thanks kenneth [23:14] let it roll then, Kenneth, paste some minutes :-) [23:14] nobody stepping up for facilitating the meeting? [23:14] if not, shall i do? [23:14] Agenda is [23:14] * Review Previous Action Items [23:14] * TWiki 4.0.3 release [23:14] * Revisit rule of changing API in non-backwards-compatible way [23:15] ---++ 1. Review Previous Action Items [23:15] Crawford: Investigate setting Vars in forms - %Y% Fixed [23:15] * MartinCleaver has joined #twiki_edinburgh [23:15] Kenneth: Try registration failure without Net::SMTP installed - %Y% Problem fixed [23:15] * MartinCleaver wonders what's with the _ in the name of the channe; [23:15] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/EdinburghReleaseMeeting2006x06x12 [23:16] thx Peter [23:16] ok, lets start [23:16] anything to add to the agenda? [23:17] nope [23:17] ok [23:17] criteria for 4.1? [23:17] review: [23:17] Will: Commit to release date [23:18] we have not seen will committing to a date [23:18] * MartinCleaver tries and fails to /invite wbniv [23:18] We are down to one release blocker, that's much better than two weeks ago [23:18] in teh e-mail he send shortly before he said that he has many things going on, and that he would not mid if someone else does the build [23:18] MartinCleaver: Will is not coming to the meeting [23:19] Sven has agreed (reluctantly) to step up if Will can't do the build [23:19] however he can't do it before the weekend [23:19] (told you he was here in spirit! ;-) ) [23:19] that means, start next week? [23:20] start what? [23:20] build [23:20] I have already mentioned Sven's great spirit in the participant list ;-) [23:20] when he said "weekend" I assumed saturday [23:20] though it could be either end, i guess [23:20] i will be away for 10 days or so starting saturday [23:20] Only release blocker is "REST handlers cause initPlugin with useless web.topic" [23:21] vacation with family, to yellowstone park [23:21] i do not know how good connection i have [23:21] Lavr: that's not a blocker [23:21] limited time anyway [23:21] no currently released plugins rely on initPlugin in REST handlers [23:21] we checked [23:21] * TravisBarker has joined #twiki_edinburgh [23:21] Only one on the list I meant. _I_ have not intention to push for this one [23:21] 8-) [23:21] agreed, the rest stuff is not a blocker [23:22] mind if I join you? [23:22] i'd like to help on the twiki.org doc part of the 4.0.3 release [23:22] for that i'd like to have it happen this week [23:22] I'm sure you are welcome Travis [23:23] not at all, please step in travis :-) [23:23] * Lynnwood has joined #twiki_edinburgh [23:23] hi lynnwood [23:23] I'm sure we'd all like to have 4.0.3 built and gone. However i suggest we do not "look a gift horse in the mouth" [23:23] lynnwood: we are on a.i. review [23:24] do you want to take over facilitation? [23:24] we do not have a great record in finding people to do builds, and Sven has experience [23:24] hi there. i'm sorry to interrupt. I just came in to say that I could not attend. I've got something pressing. do you have a facilitator? [23:24] * PeterThoeny thinks he is [23:24] yes, thanks Lynnwood [23:25] that's tough to do that and participate. [23:25] ok, no problem lynnwood, thanks for stopping by [23:25] I will try to get back if i can. [23:25] Lynnwood. Now we do. We are at 1. Review Previous Action Items / commit release date [23:25] PeterThoeny: how much work is left? [23:26] (on the doc work?) [23:26] oh, just the usual twiki.org doc changes at the time of the release [23:26] codev topic, pref variables, /index.html etc [23:27] nothing that can be done in advance [23:27] CDot: Nope, if Sven offers his assistance that would be very much appreciated (for my part at least) :-) [23:27] takes an hour or so [23:27] Peter: ah, ok .. I will join in for that .. I think Lavr can probably not resist either if we tempt him [23:28] we are deep into item "2. TWiki 4.0.3 Release" [23:28] shall we stop here and review the last a.i. first? [23:28] Nah the usual release topics are not too much work. The release note is almost automatic now and I noticed Steffen altered many headlines to be better worded [23:29] lets quickly finish the a.i. first [23:29] > Focus group: Establish good old conference call [23:29] we have not followed up on thsi one [23:29] Yes. my offer still stands. [23:29] i was preoccupied by the new spam threat last week [23:30] So was I plus more. [23:30] anything to add to the doc focus group at this time? [23:30] (I must admit I am not much for conference calls, I get too many at work .. but hey, everything for the community if you guys want to do it :-)) [23:31] It was Arthur, Peter and I in the focus group. Meredith stepped out. [23:31] but then, it's good to hear the voices behind the community members for the first time :-) [23:31] yeah, I would be very curious about that, admitted :-) [23:32] if no more on doc, lets continue with: [23:32] You want to step in Steffen? [23:32] ---+ 2. TWiki 4.0.3 Release [23:32] oh, lets wait for steffen's answer [23:32] When should the first conf call be? Before or after your vacation peter? [23:33] we can set up a conf call this week [23:33] Lavr: yep, would like to - my phone bill is paid for me as is, so no special arrangements needed I think [23:33] i am pretty much open in the mornings my time [23:33] The conf call is sponsered and will not cost anything for any of you. Free dial in [23:33] ah, nice [23:34] kenneth, can you invite arthur, kenneth, steffen and me? (possibly propose two times this week) [23:34] The best time for me is after 19:00 CET. After dinner time. I am too busy at work these days. 4 weeks till big end milestone [23:35] OK. I will propose two time slots. [23:35] cool [23:35] after 20:00 CET I have three kids in bed here and a wife that is less noisy, but I can turn off the mic in between if earlier [23:35] ok, back to [23:35] ---+ 2. TWiki 4.0.3 Release [23:37] we don't have a good track record for these dates I'm afraid [23:37] I guess Will is well excused this time. Normally it has been open bugs that held us back. This is not the case which is a GOOD sign. [23:38] well, it's a good sign if people have been testing [23:38] so, excluding the rest thingy, no blockers then? [23:38] which is always my main worry [23:38] Let us ask Sven if he will build this weekend. And power test until then. I have been playing some hours daily on my test server. [23:38] if not it would be nice to build a pre-release now [23:39] so that we have a few days for testing [23:40] agreed we could use a build now, for baselining testing until Sven has time [23:40] Well. Building a ZIP is not a big thing. [23:40] anyone time to build the pre-release? [23:40] * SteffenPoulsen spots a volounteer [23:40] Harald has a patch pending that should go in. [23:41] which could be ready in a day or so [23:41] Yes [23:41] * CDot is just checking the build is clean [23:41] ...back in 30 sec [23:43] CDot: Was that an "if" or a ":" lacking in that sentence? :-) [23:43] ...back, sorry [23:44] SteffenPoulsen: if you like [23:44] it's sort of optional [23:44] So Steffen makes the RC when the pending patch is in? [23:45] just checking if it was meant to be informal :-) [23:45] Just for community testing. [23:45] actually I was thinking more of you as the volounteer, but I can roll it np [23:45] do we have an ETA on Harald's pending patch? [23:45] (s/informal/informative) [23:45] and clearly marked as pre-release (with "rc" or the like) [23:46] OK. I can do it too. I have built the zips before - we are just talking about rolling the build script. [23:46] yes [23:47] OK. I will do it. And I have the pending patch so ... [23:47] ok, it looks like kenneth volunteered to create the zip after the pending patch? [23:47] thx [23:47] in this case it looks like we care cooking in a day or so [23:47] ? [23:48] Yes. [23:48] ok, cool] [23:48] So we're adding the patch and open the bug item afterwards for documenting it? [23:48] lets take that offline then between kenneth, harald and me [23:48] Ok [23:49] harald, wait with adding the patch, lets take this offline [23:49] ok, so we will have the rc sometines this week [23:49] how to proceed? [23:50] as many people as possible test this [23:50] create a 4.0.3 topic in codev, but clearly label it as rc! [23:50] Yes. Test test test. That is the name of the game. I will try and get time to upgrade my Motion TWiki with the RC also. That gives good live testing. [23:50] Lavr: FYI Kenneth the build is clean; just ran in about 3 mins. [23:51] Cool [23:51] if no major issues found, build when? [23:51] Then we ask Sven to do the official build. [23:52] ok [23:52] This weekend if all is well. [23:52] that means earliest this coming weekend [23:52] correct [23:52] so, someone else need to do the twiki.org update [23:52] guess so [23:52] since i will have spotty connection [23:53] does it require special access? [23:53] special access is needed for pref setting change and for /index.html update [23:53] kenneth, could you do that? [23:53] i can document the to-does [23:53] It would be good if you could, lavr [23:53] "todo's" [23:54] we all appreciate your attention to detail [23:54] Sure. I can. [23:54] excellent :-) [23:54] thanks kenneth for doing so much for the community! [23:54] My pleasure [23:55] are we done ith the 4.0.3 release scheduling? [23:55] anything else we need to discuss on 4.0.3? [23:56] I am OK. [23:56] don't think so .. hope the plan on testing it will work in the end :-) [23:56] if not let's continue with the "lackluster" [23:56] ---+ 3. Revisit rule of changing API in non-backwards-compatible way [23:57] :) [23:57] i think the community is pretty much ok with the latest outcome as stated in http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/PluginsApiPolicyDiscussion [23:57] Which is to remove it from the policy topic? [23:58] kenneth stepped back from his proposal [23:58] Yes. [23:58] kenneth, do you want to add anything? [23:58] OK. Just wanted to clarify. [23:58] No. [23:58] ok, then lets act on it and move on. [23:59] as i stated earlier, i am also not too hung up on this particular rule [23:59] are we on course for a world's record shortest meeting? [23:59] but one thing i want to be clear Session Time: Tue Jun 13 00:00:00 2006 [00:00] this rule was agreed on at a meeting, but no follow-up documentation was done at that time [00:00] which probably caused grief at the time i added it to the policy topic [00:01] so, i am fine to discard the rule [00:01] but would like to point out that we should follow a process to change the rules [00:01] e.g. it was not right to simply delete a rule we agreed on in a meeting [00:02] that is my only point [00:02] that's a tough one, Peter. Because when you write rules, you write them for everyone, but not everyone writes the rules [00:02] if you see what i mean [00:02] crawford, i did not write the rule [00:02] And generally speaking we discuss things in a Codev topic before we bring them up in meetings [00:02] I think we can agree it is a good idea to have findings from here going "pervasive" in the docs earlier, a point also for us [00:02] in an open source context, the best you can do is to set the standards, the goals we all need to aspire to [00:03] i simply documented (late) what we agreed on [00:03] sure, understood, not blaming anyone; just observing [00:03] anyone could have documented what was set in a meeting [00:03] it just happended to be me [00:03] Or am I misunderstanding the standard process? [00:03] that we (*all* of use) need to lead by example, not by beating people with sticks [00:04] good point [00:05] Drusilla: Nope, that is the ideal procedure as I see it [00:05] yes. And we need to stop provoking all these silly principle discussions. INstead of discussions the principle discuss when there is an actual thing to discuss. [00:05] Let me try that with correct grammer [00:06] Instead of discussing the principle, discuss when there is an actual thing to discuss. [00:06] Lavr: no worries, we all understood [00:06] ok, it may sound silly at this point, but lets vote on removing the rule: 1: remove update plugins rule, 2: keep as is [00:06] 1 [00:06] 1 [00:07] reason to vote: we cannot arbitrarily change rules by a single member [00:07] 1 if it means reverting to CDots suggestion [00:07] 1 [00:07] 1 [00:07] no vote here on this topic [00:08] ok, unilaterally agreed to remove, with one no vote [00:08] done deal then :-) [00:09] are we at the end of the meeting? [00:09] I hope in the future we can go back to discussing things in Codev first. [00:09] It avoids confusion, I think [00:09] any process change should be discussed in codev first, then brought into a meeting for a decision [00:10] Cool. We agree! [00:10] i think that avoids friction [00:10] ok, we are at +72 min [00:10] Sounds good to me. [00:10] Well. I would like LESS discussions on Codev when they are just principle discussions that lead nowhere. [00:10] we stated late, so within 60 min [00:11] Sorry, Kenneth. I meant proposals. Not fights. [00:11] I agree with you on fights. [00:12] * SteffenPoulsen passes the piece pipe [00:12] i think we can do better by providing solid proposals to vet instead of discussions on a cloudy subject [00:12] Yes. Raf was so good at that [00:12] * PeterThoeny takes a deep breath [00:12] * PeterThoeny and passes it on [00:13] close meeting? [00:13] btw s/piece/peace I think? :-) [00:13] * CDot takes the piece, and eats it with relish (a "piece" is a sandwich in Scotland) [00:13] ah, that's ok, done with it then :-) [00:13] Steffen: Yes - like "Rest in Pieces" :-) [00:13] And a gun in the US, right? [00:14] as in piece maker? [00:14] *g* [00:14] * Drusilla is a pacifist, so no worries [00:15] * PeterThoeny lives in peaceful silicon valley [00:15] I would like to learn more about the balance between keeping code backwards compatible and moving forward with evolving new ideas and methods but I suspect that may be a cloudy subject [00:15] * PeterThoeny and grew up in neutral switzerland [00:15] one thing before we close - I'd like to hear how status is on t.o. after the twiki4 upgrade .. all fine and dandy? [00:15] i suspect i will learn more as cases arise which deal with it [00:16] ok, lets close the meeting and continue with talk [00:16] ok [00:16] oh, ok steffen [00:16] we still need to update more twiki web topics before we can switch the %TWIKIWEB% back to the twiki web [00:17] i do not see this as highest priority