Session Start: Mon Oct 30 22:03:16 2006 Session Ident: #twiki_edinburgh [22:03] * Now talking in #twiki_edinburgh [22:03] Hi all [22:03] hi kenneth [22:03] Hello [22:03] good to see you here :-) [22:03] I wouldn't wanna miss it [22:04] is crawford still in vacation? [22:05] * Flenser has joined #TWiki_Edinburgh [22:05] we are not that big a group today, but shall we start? [22:06] MInutes being edited [22:06] cool [22:06] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/EdinburghReleaseMeeting2006x10x30 [22:07] ok, i will moderate unless someone would like to do it? [22:08] before we start, anything to add to agenda: [22:08] # 1. Review Previous Action Items [22:08] # 2. Review Proposed Features of TWiki 4.1 [22:08] # 3. TWiki 4.1 Release Timing [22:08] ? [22:08] if not, lets start [22:08] ---+ 1. Review Previous Action Items [22:08] # Peter and Kenneth to provide feedback for Sam on PostDakarTrackingAndDiscussion [22:09] i have not done that yet, due to deadline of another project [22:09] this is open for me [22:09] And I have been kept busy keeping up with new proposals [22:09] And with 4.0.5 [22:10] so, a.i. remains open for both of us [22:10] # Kenneth to make short description of the requirements for the script to create the zips with only the changed files. [22:10] Yes [22:10] Same reply. It was not urgent because there was only 5 or so files changed in 4.0.4 [22:10] 5 [22:10] 4.0.5 [22:10] ok, remains open too [22:10] Yep [22:11] # Kwang will use the above and make a stab on making the script. [22:11] :) [22:11] * Flenser blinks and realises that the item he came to the meeting for has passed by [22:11] dependency on previous one, so remains open as well [22:12] flenser/sam, do you have an update/request/feedback on the forms based tracking? [22:13] um [22:13] what is that [22:14] ah, tracking open issues that people are commited to? [22:14] yes [22:14] that's dependent on the owner field being implemented [22:15] ok, i think it is best to take this offline, kenneth and i need to give some feedback first [22:15] # Steffen - review the proposed change in NeedSpecForFormValueInitialization for implications to TWiki Apps. And if he finds it safe it is accepted. [22:15] Now that the WhatIsIn04x01 has been working the manual way it is hopefully a little more clear what is required when we pass 4.1. [22:15] Steffen has done it and accepted it [22:15] yes i have seen [22:15] # Kenneth - build beta of 4.1 [22:16] I was going to and actually had practiced. [22:16] kenneth, first of all, thanks for building 4.0.5, you do so much! [22:16] But then the code became very unstable with many open and visible bugs so I decided to wait. [22:17] ok, lets talk about this in agenda item 3 [22:17] OK. [22:17] ---+ 2. Review Proposed Features of TWiki 4.1 [22:17] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/WhatIsIn04x01 [22:17] kenneth, what should we discuss here? [22:17] There is only ONE topic ready for discussion. [22:18] Execute on earlier decision to retire SupportFormsForSettingPreferences [22:18] That is the headline - not my oppinion [22:19] The code for this old feature was removed from Dakar. And it triggered trouble and bug reports and we added the code again. [22:19] So IMHO we cannot remove the code again now. Nothing has changed in 3 months. [22:19] but we can initiate the deprecation process [22:20] But we can ANNOUNCE the feature deprecated to enable removal maybe in 1 or 2 years. [22:20] we decided to remove it [22:20] all we need to do then is to clearly mark it as deprecated in 4.1 [22:21] Does anyone DISAGREE with this disposition? [22:21] oh, yes, good question [22:21] this decision was done before the new process [22:22] so, who does not agree to deprecate this feature? [22:22] It seems not. So the action then is not to remove any code but to identify where to document the deprecation. [22:22] poll: [22:22] 1 - keep feature [22:22] 2 - declare as depracted in 4.1 [22:23] 2 [22:23] 2 [22:23] 2 - I never got the hang of it though I've seen it [22:23] can you give a quick recap of the problem? [22:24] is it because of a better PreferencesPlugin? [22:24] twiki 4 has the feature to set pref setting in th etopic itself via plugin [22:24] cairo had a similar feature, but done with twiki forms [22:24] right [22:24] we plan to deprecate the twiki forms based feature [22:24] in that case I vote for 2 [22:24] though there are issues with PreferencesPlugin as well [22:25] since it dupliactes the plugin based solution' [22:25] I understand (never used it) that you could in the old days set preferences in the FORM of a topic. [22:25] yes [22:25] i also never used [22:25] it [22:25] But not all. E.g. ALLOWTOPICCHANGE did not work. [22:25] So it was a partly broken feature all along. [22:25] 2 [22:26] the button on Main.TWikiPreferences, does it call PreferencesPlugin? [22:26] Where is the old feature documented in TWiki4? [22:26] possibly not even documented? [22:26] the topic says EDITPREFERENCES [22:27] So the Actionitem is then limited to two things.... [22:27] %EDITPREFERENCES{"TWikiPreferencesForm"}% actually [22:27] ArthurClemens: If the plugin is present, it does [22:27] 1. Document the deprecation in release note [22:27] 2. Document the deprecation in the code. [22:28] who takes tjis action item? [22:30] where is the release note doc? [22:30] There is no release note doc for 4.1 yet. [22:30] there is a http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki04/TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x00 [22:30] should it go in svn? [22:30] we need to create a TWikiReleaseNotes04x10x00 [22:31] or just on twiki.org? [22:31] or better a TWiki04/TWikiReleaseNotes04x10 [22:31] We changed the name. So it should be .... YES [22:31] yes, that should go in svn MAIN [22:31] TWiki04/TWikiReleaseNotes04x01 [22:32] (skip the TWiki04/ prefix) [22:32] anyone taking the action item of creating TWiki.TWikiReleaseNotes04x10 in svn? [22:33] One question first -breaking agenda. [22:33] yes? [22:33] Should the release note start from new or be an addendum to the 4.0 note? [22:33] I will make the release note [22:34] I would say start from new, with a link to the 4.0 note [22:34] i'd say, start from new, with similar format as the previous one [22:34] I agree on that too. [22:34] and only list what is new in 4.1 in rlation to 4.0 [22:35] what we're missing is a "complete feature list" [22:35] TWikiReleaseNotes04x00x00 should remain in the distribution, or should it? [22:35] I have seen in many softwares that thet have the changes as deltas bewteen versions, and the complete feature set. [22:35] It is now called TWikiReleaseNotes04x00 - it was renamed. [22:35] that is the idea in TWikiHistory [22:36] http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki04/TWikiHistory [22:36] sort of... TWikiHistory lists all the deltas. It's not the same as having a consolidated list. [22:36] so for 4.1 we need to update the history topic as well [22:37] but I disgress... please continue [22:37] rafael: please feel free to create a topic in codev to get this rolling [22:37] * Soronthar takes note on that [22:38] ok, back to deprecation [22:38] OK action wrap up. [22:38] * Arthur: Create the TWiki.TWikiReleaseNotes04x01 [22:38] * Kenneth: Add note about deprecation of settings in form fields to release notes TWiki.TWikiReleaseNotes04x01 [22:38] * Thomas (Kenneth will ask him) Add note about deprecation of settings in form fields to release notes in the code. [22:38] clear win for deprecating the forms based pref setting feature [22:38] tks kenneth [22:39] DONE [22:39] i think there are no other feature items to discuss, kenneth? [22:39] there is one [22:39] anyone like to bring up an item for discussion? [22:39] yes? [22:39] AddSectionParam [22:40] anyone stepping up? [22:40] because we need a Perl devvo [22:40] We need a perl hacker to assist Arthur to drive this one. [22:40] I think I could do that only that I've been very busy with my job recently [22:41] and it looks like two more busy weeks ahead [22:41] same here [22:41] reading the last two comments by harald and thomas, it is a nobrainer! [22:41] OK. Now Harald. Noone says the driver has to do it tomorrow. [22:41] The only one that had a clear argument against was Sven. [22:42] Now we have a driver we can vote. And I suggest we do that. [22:42] yes, lets do that [22:43] The feature proposed in two lines.... [22:43] Add a URL parameter so that you can view a topic so only the specified section is returned. [22:43] quick poll: [22:43] 1 - add new section=name parameter to view script [22:43] 2 - do not add, solve in plugin code [22:43] Exactly like we can today from another topic with INCLUDE. [22:43] 1 [22:43] 1 [22:44] 1 [22:44] 1 [22:44] 1 [22:44] Erm - 1, only I think we should clarify what happens with edit/Web/Topic?section=NamedSection [22:44] that is a good question [22:44] one step at a time [22:45] As proposed I would assume - nothing. [22:45] Because that seems to be what caused the stir in comparison to the SectionalEditStuff [22:45] nothing? The proposal was only for the view script. [22:45] this feature proposal is for view [22:45] I would agree if we say "in 4.1 for view only. Needs thinking for other actions" [22:45] so for this step, support parameter only in view script [22:46] although to fetch an attach form... [22:46] THAT is what the proposal raised by Arthur deals with. ONly view. [22:46] let's do view only, for now [22:47] decision made by consensus: implement for view script only [22:47] and do new feature proposal(s) for other scripts [22:48] ok, any other feature items to discuss? [22:48] ---+ 3. TWiki 4.1 Release Timing [22:48] Minuted: * AddSectionParam was accepted by 6 votes for and 0 against. The feature covers the view script only. ?section=somename will not have any effect on edit. This is for the already existing plugins to handle. Harald takes task of driving the code implementation together with Arthur. [22:49] once we have beta, we go with this proposed schedule: [22:49] - code freeze one week after beta [22:49] - rc1 2 weeks after beta [22:49] On release timing. I propose that we freeze more inputs on WhatIsOn04x01 NOW. [22:50] (unless unforseen problems with beta) [22:50] We need to focus on betas and bug fixing from now on to make it this year. [22:51] Feature freeze is not the same as code freeze. People can finish the already agreed features but we should stop accepted new ideas now for 4.1 [22:51] agreed on focusing on bug fixing, but i would prefer to keep it open until one week after beta [22:51] I can agree with that [22:52] why? [22:52] ok, good argument kenneth on feature freeze vs code freeze [22:53] I can make a WhatIsOn04x02 topic so people can park their ideas. But we will suspend the 14 day auto accept until 4.1 is released then. To free our time for 4.1 [22:53] do we have an agreement on: [22:53] - feature freeze today (e.g. what is accepted today) [22:53] - beta in x days [22:53] - code freeze 1 week after beta [22:53] - rc 1 2 weeks after beta [22:54] feature freeze today (e.g. what is ALREADY ADDED today) [22:54] don't call it WhatIsOn04x02, plan for the pick list in feature proposal topic [22:55] We should give the last few open discussions the chance to finish in a few days. [22:55] we can call it something like TWikiFeature04x02 [22:56] FixCheckTopicEditLock, PluginHandlerForContentMove, TemplatePathIsCounterintuitive, TemplateAffectsTextarea, Documented Default Parameter Values For Include [22:56] Those are the open ones. [22:56] open discussions: any particular ones in mind kenneth? [22:56] And TWikiJavaScriptRefactoring [22:56] ok thnaks [22:56] Most of them are near conclusions. [22:57] TWikiJavaScriptRefactoring - can this make it for a 4.1 this year Arthur - coding wise? [22:57] perhaps [22:58] I think so, yes [22:58] great! [22:58] because it doesn't have to have any implications yet [22:58] I intend to keep twiki.js alive [22:58] for backward compatibility [22:59] +60 min, we are almost done [22:59] There is no customer impact. No TML impact. It is not really a new feature. Just code refactoring. [22:59] are we ready for building beta now? or if not, when? [23:00] but I want to do it right this time, with unit tests [23:00] I think the skin is working again right now so I would do a beta the next few days. [23:00] Just a question before we're building a beta: Who did some tests on CDot's configure refactoring? [23:01] The purpose of the first beta is for me mainly to test configure ourside a pseudo-install. [23:01] I fear we are up for some surprises. [23:02] CDot's changes are quite a bunch of code, and it is still not -w proof [23:02] arthur: does the js code refactor affect a future case we would take another javascript library as pre-installed contrib, such as yui? [23:02] no, it shouldn't [23:03] in fact, we already have yui [23:03] yes [23:03] so, yui and twiki js complement each other? [23:03] that code is already class based [23:03] they can [23:04] the refactoring is meant to safeguard against "old" js, without classes [23:04] ok [23:04] Arthur. The TWikiReleaseNotes04x10 should be TWikiReleaseNotes04x01 [23:04] was I too fast? [23:04] back to beta build: i agree with kenneth, the first beta does not need to be that stable, it is a vehicle to learn and to improve things [23:05] ? [23:05] its 4.1, not 4.01 [23:05] It is not 4.10 [23:05] ah [23:06] i see [23:06] arthur: we use zero padding so that we can sort also after version 10 [23:06] it _is_ confusing, you know that [23:06] we need better sorting [23:06] Yeah, one of the obvious cases of overengineering ;-> [23:07] why not 04x01x00 [23:07] or 04x0001 [23:08] We want to reuse the same release notes for 04x01x01, 04x01x02 etc [23:08] because we will have new release notes only for minor releases, not patch releases [23:08] e.g. all patch release notes should be stated in the minor release notes topic [23:09] When we release 4.1 it will be called TWikiRelease04x01x00 as tag name on SVN. [23:09] And as release topic on Codev [23:09] ok, i think we are done with the meeting [23:09] anything to add? [23:10] Let me wrap the 4.1 actions. [23:10] So we decided on Feature freeze tonight. [23:10] Beta in a few days. [23:11] Non-bug related code only for items already on WhatIsIn04x01 [23:12] I will add the text to WhatIsIn04x01 [23:12] refactoring of configure is still important [23:12] Yeah, and it isn't visible in WhatIsIn04x01 explicitly [23:12] i would keep minor enhancements (that do not need a codev topic) open until code freeze [23:13] currently its a horrid experience [23:13] * New ideas to TWikiFeature04x02 (kenneth creates) [23:14] Making configure work better is not a WhatIsIn04x01 scope. That is plain bug fixing. Or feature fixing. [23:14] right [23:14] but it should be done before release [23:14] Lavr: You must be kidding. What CDot has done is waaay beyond "plain bug fixing" [23:14] so we have a beta with obvious bugs? [23:15] Agree. And if there is no bug item on it - make sure they are created because the next weeks we will be driving bug closing. [23:15] WhatIsIn04x01 is all about adding new features, changing API, changing TML. Anthing else is bug item driven. [23:16] And I agree - configure needs a lot of work and this is why I want the beta out so we can test it in a true real environment and by more people. [23:17] yes, that is one purpose of beta [23:17] rc1 is the one where we expose it to a broader audience [23:17] ok, let's close the meeting unless there is anything else [23:18] ok [23:18] Fine with me. [23:18] We should also announce the feature freeze and suspension of 14 day rule on twiki-dev [23:19] and in the Bugs header [23:19] (if anyone still reads that) [23:19] I don't :-) [23:19] 14 days rule is shifting to the new feature tracking topic [23:20] so it is not suspended [23:20] It is quite a lot of work to maintain the 14 day rule in practical. [23:20] the reason why we need to give feedback to sam so that we can automate this [23:20] :-) [23:21] And it creates too much focus on those Codev discussions which goes away from release focus [23:21] Also if we make a working TWikiApp. It is the hours of discussing and making people come to conclusions. [23:21] the 14 day rule can be visualized in color if we add a date field [23:21] and some calc magic in the reports [23:22] If we openly say - the next 6 weeks we focus on 4.1 and will not discuss new features we can better focus. [23:22] No TWikiApp can make the discussions for me. [23:22] I spend 2 hours daily for the moment on that. [23:22] * ktwilight needs to learn how to squash bugs [23:23] hope to learn something. 'cuz i've just finished one web :) [23:24] If I am to focus on 4.1 then I need the 6 weeks of calmness. [23:24] hmm, good argument [23:24] alright, I am calling it a day [23:25] thanks arthur! [23:25] Bye Arthur. [23:25] g'night! [23:25] * ArthurClemens has quit IRC ("Leaving") [23:25] * ktwilight waves [23:25] So it is OK with a discussion pause until 4.1 is out hopefully before xmas? That is only 6-7 weeks from now. [23:26] kenneth, shall we keep the 14 day rule open for a week to see how it goes? [23:26] if it takes too much focus away we can freeze it in a week or so? [23:27] Lately there has been one new proposal every day. We need to freeze it now. I proposed already 2 weeks ago. And the bug pile is growing - not shrinking. [23:28] It it time for consolidating all the new and make a release with fewer bugs than 4.0. [23:28] And a 6 week pause is not really much. [23:28] I fully agree with Lavr. All new feature proposals should be auto-deferred to 4.2 [23:29] After all, that's not a big delay. And if there's someone who urgently needs it *and* can develop it, he can use it in his own installation based on 4.1 [23:29] the reason why i'd like to shift 14 day rule to nwe TWikiFeature04x02 topic is that people can continue to propose and work on new features in parallel [23:31] how about this: a feature accepted in TWikiFeature04x02 needs to wait for check-in until 4.1 is released [23:31] But I cannot manage that and also focus on 4.1. [23:32] ok, time constraint on kenneth is an important factor [23:32] And the developers also that need to argue against the feature that oppose. That drains the hours they could have spent on bug fixing. [23:33] kenneth, if you believe 4.2 feature tracking takes away too much time, then lets freeze the 14 day rule [23:33] Thanks. I am sure people survive for 6 weeks. [23:33] :-) [23:33] They survived for 6 years before the new release process :-))) [23:34] At least they know WHY their proposals are ignored for 6 weeks. Much better to be open and honest about it. [23:35] I'll do the annouce on twiki-dev also with explanation why. [23:35] I have nothing further. [23:36] ok, lets close the meeting [23:36] Good night all. [23:36] thanks all for participating emphatically [23:37] Good night from me as well, though some of you might disagree about "night" right now [23:40] am off too gnite :) [23:40] * ktwilight has left #twiki_edinburgh ("I'll be b-a-c-k") [23:41] * HaraldJoerg has quit IRC ("Connection reset by beer") Session Time: Tue Oct 31 00:00:00 2006