| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 10:06 | gregdek | w00t! |
| 10:06 | mchua | \o/ |
| 10:06 | gregdek | LOL |
| 10:06 | OK. | |
| 10:07 | looks at the TODO and presumes that it composes our agenda, more or less? | |
| 10:07 | walterbender | hey mchua, wanna document that in the wiki? |
| 10:07 | mchua | walterbender: already heading towards there. ;) |
| 10:07 | gregdek | Actually, I guess the first question is: |
| 10:07 | when is freeze? | |
| 10:08 | tomeu | tomorrow |
| 10:08 | unmadindu | from tomorrow |
| 10:08 | tomeu | http://sugarlabs.org/go/Develo[…]m/Release/Roadmap |
| 10:08 | gregdek | And not only when, but, given the recent circumstances, why? Is our calendar still right? |
| 10:08 | tomeu | why not? ;) |
| 10:08 | walterbender | I think we should stick to the Sugar schedule... |
| 10:08 | tomeu | we want to give enough time so we can ship a stable 0.84 in the next distro releases |
| 10:08 | from my POV, that's critical for us | |
| 10:09 | walterbender | we need to get into sync with more than just the OLPC release cycle |
| 10:09 | so being consistent is important | |
| 10:09 | tomeu | because OLPC may not update their builds so often and because OLPC don't have QA again |
| 10:09 | gregdek | True enough. |
| 10:09 | I'm all for a consistent schedule. | |
| 10:09 | But I also want to make sure that we agree that we have the right features this time around. | |
| 10:09 | tomeu | also, I think we have unstabilized sugar enough for this cycle ;) |
| 10:09 | gregdek | OK. :) |
| 10:09 | tomeu | gregdek: would be nice to hear what people think about it |
| 10:10 | which features are missed right now | |
| 10:10 | gregdek | If the consensus is clearly "DON'T TOUCH THE SCHEDULE!" then I'm fine with that. |
| 10:10 | tomeu | well, I see good reasons for staying with it, but wonder if there's a very needed feature we have missed and that might not be too destabilizing |
| 10:10 | dfarning | SL, strength over the last several months has been, 'plan the work, work the plan' |
| 10:10 | walterbender | I need to request that the Portfoli be added to Fructose |
| 10:11 | gregdek | My only point is that, now that our previous hard dependency on OLPC is broken, we have an opportunity to move the schedule if we want to take advantage of it. |
| 10:11 | walterbender | and ask Sayamindu to add ti to Pootle |
| 10:11 | unmadindu | walterbender: noted - will do |
| 10:11 | walterbender | what would work best for Fedora? |
| 10:11 | tomeu | gregdek: true, though at least me have been thinking more about F11 and jaunty |
| 10:11 | gregdek | OK. |
| 10:11 | tomeu | rather than OLPC |
| 10:11 | because they were changing schedules all time | |
| 10:12 | so no point in hurting ourselves for nothing | |
| 10:12 | gregdek | Well, as it happens, the schedule as it exists now is perfectly aligned with Fedora's 3/3 freeze. |
| 10:12 | walterbender | then let's go for that. |
| 10:12 | gregdek | So I guess I'll just say "well done with the schedule" and move on. :) |
| 10:12 | walterbender | any comments from the Ubuntu crowd? |
| 10:13 | tomeu | now that we talk about distros: http://sugarlabs.org/go/Packaging |
| 10:13 | mchua | peeks at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyReleaseSchedule - looks pretty good. |
| 10:13 | dfarning | debian is in a pre-release stabilization period. So debian and ubuntu are checking each others scheduals. |
| 10:13 | tomeu | dfarning: do you have poke powers over non responsive debian/ubuntu maintainers? |
| 10:14 | dfarning | tomeu, limited, but yes. Jonas is here in the room with me:) |
| 10:14 | erikos | is this the developers meeting? |
| 10:15 | mchua | erikos: yes. |
| 10:15 | tomeu | oh, got there |
| 10:15 | erikos | mchua: hey! cool |
| 10:15 | tomeu | dfarning: is about abiword, we need it built with --enable-libabiword, but haven't got reply from the maintainer yet |
| 10:16 | dfarning | ok, i will find and poke them--hard |
| 10:16 | gregdek | So. Has protocol in the past been to simply work down the TODO list? Shall we proceed that way? |
| 10:16 | bertf | which TODO list? |
| 10:16 | gregdek | http://sugarlabs.org/go/DevelopmentTeam/TODO |
| 10:17 | tomeu | gregdek: that was started on the last meeting almost one month ago and we have had holidays since then |
| 10:17 | gregdek | hrms. |
| 10:17 | tomeu | also, now that we start in freeze, may be better to work on trac |
| 10:17 | gregdek | Is there a separate agenda somewhere? |
| 10:17 | erikos | gregdek: http://sugarlabs.org/go/Develo[…]uary_15_2009_-_15.00_.28UTC.29 |
| 10:17 | gregdek | LOL |
| 10:18 | So I see that item 2 is "update TODO list". :) | |
| 10:18 | But since item 1 is "prep for freeze"... | |
| 10:18 | bertf | when is a good time to discuss etoys packaging? should I care? |
| 10:18 | gregdek | bertf: As in, distro packaging? |
| 10:18 | bertf | gregdek: yes |
| 10:19 | gregdek | bertf: I can't speak for others, but I'm going to push hard to make this happen in Fedora, and the Fedora/OLPC meeting is at 1pm Eastern US time today. In about 2.5 hours from now. |
| 10:19 | I suspect that a lot of the work for Fedora packaging will help clear the way for others. | |
| 10:19 | So, wanna come to that meeting? 1pm, #fedora-olpc? | |
| 10:20 | tomeu | bertf: perhaps dfarning can help with etoys packaging in debian/ubuntu? |
| 10:20 | bertf | gregdek: sorry, no,. I'm on kids-watch today |
| 10:20 | gregdek | Ah, ok. Well, watch the mailing list for updates. |
| 10:20 | bertf | gregdek: gavin was working on fedora packaging |
| 10:20 | gregdek | Yes, but not moving too quickly, from what I last saw. I need to sit down with him. |
| 10:20 | Figure out what the roadblocks are. | |
| 10:21 | Anyway, that's for later. :) | |
| 10:21 | So... um... | |
| 10:21 | dfarning | tomeu, bertf, will poke again. We resolved most of the issues a few months ago. |
| 10:21 | gregdek | ...is everyone ready for feature freeze? :) |
| 10:21 | bertf | dfarning: great |
| 10:21 | silbe | regarding packaging in Debian: how long are you going to support (i.e. react to bug reports) 0.82? |
| 10:21 | gregdek | Is there a list of proposed features with statuses, etc. anywhere, or no? |
| 10:22 | cjb | appears, hello |
| 10:22 | tomeu | silbe: that's a good subject, can you add it to the agenda? |
| 10:22 | hi cjb | |
| 10:22 | silbe | lenny might ship with 0.82, so Debian users are going to be using that for quite a while if they're using the distro-provided packages |
| 10:22 | tomeu: how? | |
| 10:22 | tomeu | silbe: http://sugarlabs.org/go/Develo[…]uary_15_2009_-_15.00_.28UTC.29 |
| 10:22 | "Topics" | |
| 10:22 | gregdek: we used to, but as OLPC changed plans, we ditched it and moved to the TODO list | |
| 10:22 | gregdek | Hi cjb. Good to "see" you. :) |
| 10:22 | erikos | gregdek: that is what we have in the todo list (of pending features at least) |
| 10:23 | gregdek | All right, then. |
| 10:23 | So maybe the best way of assessing where we are for freeze is actually going down the TODO list, after all? | |
| 10:23 | erikos | the list needs to be updated though |
| 10:23 | tomeu | but we have good info on the old feature pages |
| 10:23 | erikos | gregdek: yup |
| 10:24 | gregdek | Okey doke. |
| 10:24 | "Making PS a bit more controllable from the control panel". | |
| 10:24 | morgs? You around? | |
| 10:24 | tomeu | for the curious: these links lead to the old feature pages: http://sugarlabs.org/go/Develo[…]ase/Roadmap#Goals |
| 10:24 | erikos | gregdek: we have a patch we are about to sort out for that |
| 10:25 | silbe | tomeu: done |
| 10:25 | gregdek | erikos: So it's "in" for FF? |
| 10:26 | erikos | gregdek: yes - i just added the ticket number |
| 10:27 | gregdek | OK, so I understand: |
| 10:28 | The goal of adding the ticket is so that we can track it through the release cycle? | |
| 10:28 | does not know our trac workflow at all, apologies. | |
| 10:28 | erikos | gregdek: yes, our release notes does contain the closed ticket numbers |
| 10:29 | gregdek | Got it. Thanks. |
| 10:29 | OK, then. | |
| 10:29 | tomeu | from the changelogs |
| 10:29 | gregdek | Moving on: |
| 10:29 | "Cp language section (display the language options in the original language: English, Espanol, Deutsch)". | |
| 10:29 | unmadindu? | |
| 10:29 | erikos | gregdek: we have a patch - needs to be reviewed |
| 10:30 | unmadindu | patch for review |
| 10:30 | gregdek | looks at ticket. |
| 10:30 | erikos | unmadindu: did you test performance wise on the XO? |
| 10:30 | unmadindu | erikos: not very encouraging - I got a lag of a few seconds (3-4) |
| 10:31 | erikos | unmadindu: for drawing the combobox? |
| 10:31 | gregdek | What's our patch review process? Just a +1 from any developer? |
| 10:31 | unmadindu | erikos: no - for getting the translations |
| 10:31 | tomeu | unmadindu: can we do those computations lazily? I thought TreeModel supported something like that |
| 10:31 | unmadindu | tomeu: I:l check |
| 10:31 | erikos | gregdek: yes that is about to be correct |
| 10:31 | tomeu | gregdek: let me look up in the wiki |
| 10:32 | gregdek | LOL |
| 10:32 | :) | |
| 10:32 | tomeu | gregdek: http://sugarlabs.org/go/Develo[…]ntTeam/CodeReview |
| 10:33 | gregdek | Good stuff, folks. |
| 10:34 | All right, so from a process perspective, does a patch have to be "submitted" by Feature Freeze, or successfully reviewed by Feature Freeze... or do we care? | |
| 10:34 | In other words, is this feature sufficiently "in"? | |
| 10:35 | begs everyone's pardon for learning on the job. | |
| 10:35 | erikos | gregdek: the code should be in git |
| 10:35 | tomeu | gregdek: they aren't yet in, but we hope they will be pushed before the freeze |
| 10:35 | oh, it is already? /me shuts up | |
| 10:36 | erikos | tomeu: no, it is not in already - i was replying to the process question |
| 10:36 | gregdek | erikos: To be clear. Do you mean this code is NOW in git, or this code SHOULD be in git to be "frozen", but is not yet? |
| 10:36 | OK, thanks. :) | |
| 10:36 | Then we need to get it into git, and since unmadindu wrote the patch, he can not own the process of getting it in. | |
| 10:36 | So who's reviewing this patch and putting it in? | |
| 10:37 | erikos | gregdek: i am here for reviews today |
| 10:37 | gregdek | Awesome. |
| 10:38 | erikos | i will assist to get morgan's #142 and unmadindu's #51 in |
| 10:38 | gregdek | OK. Brilliant. |
| 10:38 | Moving on: | |
| 10:38 | RTL support in Sugar. | |
| 10:38 | unmadindu? | |
| 10:39 | unmadindu | bits and pieces still missing. there is a patch from Khaled, but marcopg is not happy with that |
| 10:39 | gregdek | How does that affect freeze? Is the code currently in place sufficient to do *something* useful? |
| 10:40 | erikos | unmadindu: yeah, we did not really work on it in the last months, right? |
| 10:40 | unmadindu | erikos: yes - it requires some invasive changes all over the board |
| 10:40 | gregdek | (And is there any place where the functionality is described?) |
| 10:40 | unmadindu | gregdek: it is mostly done - only bit missing is that some icons do not show up as mirrored |
| 10:40 | gregdek: it[ on the OLPC trac | |
| 10:40 | erikos | unmadindu: the '>' ones etc? |
| 10:41 | unmadindu | erikos: yes |
| 10:41 | tomeu | gregdek: basically, there are some UI elements that should follow the language writing order |
| 10:41 | gregdek | Ah, ok. |
| 10:41 | "RTL" == "right to left". | |
| 10:41 | :) | |
| 10:41 | tomeu | gregdek: we need to change that following a runtime variable that depends on the language active in tha tmoment |
| 10:41 | right ;) | |
| 10:42 | gregdek | So this looks like incremental improvement where we can get it. |
| 10:42 | Seems like the feature may be "done enough" such that fixes during the cleanup can responsibly be considered "bugfixing"? | |
| 10:42 | unmadindu | gregdek: yes, but the missing bits require significant invasive changes, if done the correct way |
| 10:42 | gregdek | Ah. |
| 10:43 | unmadindu | distros can use Khaled[ patch if they want |
| 10:43 | erikos | yeah, i guess unlikely to get in today :/ |
| 10:43 | tomeu | gregdek: the right "fix" would be involving developers from those locales |
| 10:43 | unmadindu | that is pretty safe |
| 10:43 | gregdek | And the wrong "fix"? |
| 10:43 | unmadindu | gregdek: we already have that |
| 10:43 | (not in git though) | |
| 10:43 | gregdek | That is Khaled's patch? |
| 10:43 | unmadindu | yes |
| 10:43 | tomeu | put some code in now that may not be enough but destabilize stuff |
| 10:44 | gregdek | I'm new here, so I will rely on everyone else's thoughts... |
| 10:44 | tomeu | unmadindu: I'm afraid khaled's patches won't apply too cleanly now |
| 10:44 | but we can give it a try | |
| 10:44 | unmadindu | tomeu: I can take care of that |
| 10:44 | tomeu | ok, nice |
| 10:44 | unmadindu | tomeu: but do we want that in upstream ? |
| 10:44 | erikos | i think the first move would be, to move the patches to d.s.o |
| 10:45 | tomeu | unmadindu: I'm not sure |
| 10:45 | gregdek | Yes. |
| 10:45 | erikos | the trak i mean |
| 10:45 | gregdek | Even the dirty patches you don't like should be upstream. |
| 10:45 | tomeu | unmadindu: I miss marco's opinion on this one |
| 10:45 | unmadindu | tomeu: I think it may be best to leave it to the distros - eg: if RTL is a priority for OLPC, they patch it in their own package |
| 10:45 | tomeu | unmadindu: if we had someone who was able to tell us how much important it will be for us in the next 6 months, we may be able to take a better decision |
| 10:45 | gregdek | Does the RTL affect anything for the distros outside of Sugar itself? |
| 10:46 | erikos | unmadindu: i thought RTL is important to sugar in general? |
| 10:46 | unmadindu | tomeu, erikos: I think it is pretty important to OLPC |
| 10:46 | gregdek: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6562 | |
| 10:47 | tomeu | hmm, if we switch to some other canvas for 0.86, we have to rewrite those parts anyway |
| 10:47 | unmadindu | oh - are we considering that ? |
| 10:47 | tomeu | unmadindu: we have been considering that since before using hippo-canvas ;) |
| 10:47 | unmadindu | oh, lol :) |
| 10:47 | tomeu | unmadindu: hippo is not being maintained, so... |
| 10:47 | gregdek | My take, which is uninformed in this case but generally my philosophy: (a) imperfect code is better than no code; (b) open a ticket against 0.86 so you don't lose track of it; (c) even dirty code should be upstream. |
| 10:48 | erikos | this looks like marco's opinion: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/6562#comment:13 |
| 10:48 | unmadindu | would cautiously agree with gregdek ;) |
| 10:49 | gregdek | marco advocates for the "right" way. No time for that now, so the only open question is, do we fix it the "wrong" way in the short term, or not at all? |
| 10:50 | Which is a function of how painful it will be to fix once we've done it the "wrong" way. | |
| 10:50 | tomeu | but it's not only 6562, right? |
| 10:50 | gregdek | A question that I, as a non-developer, cannot answer. :) |
| 10:50 | unmadindu | tomeu: that[ the only major RTL bug left, as per my last conversation with Khaled |
| 10:50 | tomeu | so that patch is not so big |
| 10:51 | erikos | gregdek: i would argue for not fixing this in a buggy way |
| 10:51 | unmadindu | tomeu: no, it[ pretty simple |
| 10:51 | tomeu | I thought it was adding reverse() calls to all horizontal hippo boxes |
| 10:51 | erikos | gregdek: the situation has not changed to when we punted it for 0.82 |
| 10:52 | gregdek | What else is involved in the feature besides olpc6562? Anyone? |
| 10:52 | is worried we're taking up too much time with this one... still a number of features to go through... | |
| 10:52 | erikos | gregdek: i think we can discuss it again after the meeting |
| 10:52 | gregdek | tomeu: Gut feeling -- dirty fix, or no fix? |
| 10:53 | Don't think. Answer. :) | |
| 10:53 | tomeu | no gut feeling here |
| 10:53 | gregdek | Well, right now, the only firm opinion is -1. |
| 10:53 | From erikos. | |
| 10:53 | tomeu | but the lazy guy in me says no fix |
| 10:53 | gregdek | Which means, unless someone says PUT IT IN, it's out. |
| 10:53 | LOL | |
| 10:54 | All right. It's out. Will punt to 0.86. | |
| 10:54 | tomeu | we really need a champion for these issues |
| 10:54 | erikos | will update the wiki |
| 10:54 | gregdek | Already did. |
| 10:55 | tomeu: We'll work on that. :) | |
| 10:55 | Next: NetworkManager. erikos? From the notes, looks like using the native gconf stuff is a fix that won't make it in? | |
| 10:56 | erikos | gregdek: yes - i would need to write that today :( |
| 10:56 | gregdek | Ah well. Rome wasn't built in a day. |
| 10:56 | tomeu | erikos: do we really need it? |
| 10:56 | erikos | tomeu: oh, it is not that important, but would be my first update |
| 10:56 | gregdek | My take as a user: it's an annoyance, but not a show stopper. |
| 10:56 | tomeu | ok, 0.86 sounds good |
| 10:57 | gregdek | updates. |
| 10:57 | Next: logout option. http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/8141 | |
| 10:58 | unmadindu? | |
| 10:58 | silbe | will sugar 0.84 work without NM as well? upstream says not to use it at all if it cannot cope with the given use case |
| 10:58 | oh, sorry, too late | |
| 10:58 | unmadindu | the solution proposed there relies on an older version of GDM |
| 10:59 | I don think it will work with the GDM for the next version of GNOME | |
| 10:59 | erikos | unmadindu: what solution do you mean exactly? |
| 10:59 | gregdek | A long dispute with Eben, heh. |
| 11:00 | unmadindu | erikos: eben wants something like fast-user-switch in GNOME |
| 11:00 | erikos: that is still not there for the new GDM, when I last checked | |
| 11:00 | gregdek | The use case: me switching from Sugar to GNOME easily on my F11 system. |
| 11:01 | unmadindu | yes |
| 11:01 | erikos | unmadindu: oh, ok - read that now |
| 11:01 | unmadindu: for now - we can just apply the patch we have in F10 | |
| 11:01 | gregdek | The simple answer would be "give me a logout button," but eben doesn't like that. :) |
| 11:01 | unmadindu | erikos: yes - that would be the solution I propose |
| 11:02 | erikos | gregdek: we did that in F10; i think that is absolutely fine |
| 11:02 | unmadindu | fast-user-switch-applet communicates with GDM via a socket |
| 11:02 | gregdek | Me too. |
| 11:02 | So eben is overruled. :) | |
| 11:02 | unmadindu | that is not there in the newer GDM (yet) |
| 11:02 | gregdek | Which means: |
| 11:02 | erikos | gregdek: eben can give us a nice icon if he wants to :) |
| 11:02 | gregdek | 1. patch for "logout" for F10 is ported to current release; |
| 11:02 | eben | gregdek: What does it mean to logout if you're just running Sugar itself? |
| 11:03 | gregdek | Speak of the devil, and the devil appears. :) |
| 11:03 | silbe | will it support regular logout, as well (for usage on a normal desktop)? |
| 11:03 | gregdek | 2. user-switching is punted to 0.86. |
| 11:03 | Is that right? | |
| 11:03 | tomeu | eben: I think we should only show the logout option when sugar has been launched from gdm |
| 11:03 | unmadindu | gregdek: I would highly recommend that |
| 11:03 | tomeu | eben: I think we can know that |
| 11:03 | eben | tomeu: Ah, in that case I'm fine with it. |
| 11:03 | tomeu | silbe: yeah, that's the idea |
| 11:03 | gregdek | tomeu: Could you, or someone, make that change today? |
| 11:04 | Probably a one-liner? | |
| 11:04 | erikos | tomeu: yeah, that sounds right |
| 11:04 | unmadindu | tomeu: I can modify the patch if you want to do that |
| 11:04 | eben | I'm not against the option...I'm against showing it if it is meaningless in a given context. |
| 11:04 | silbe | tomeu: ok, thx |
| 11:04 | tomeu | unmadindu, erikos: do you already know how to check if sugar was launched from gdm? |
| 11:04 | eben | Just add it to the XO menu (which I'm still working on a patch for) |
| 11:04 | walterbender | we need to detect the context somehow |
| 11:04 | unmadindu | tomeu: check for GDMSESSION I think |
| 11:05 | tomeu | unmadindu: can you take that? I would like to work on evince, as the gnome API freeze was already three days ago |
| 11:05 | erikos | so yeah, i think the two remaining items are: find out if we have been launched from gdm, the icon we use |
| 11:05 | unmadindu | tomeu: sure - will send in patch by midnight today (IST) |
| 11:05 | gregdek | So. The goal for THIS RELEASE is to take the "show logout" patch for F10, tweak it so it only displays if the session was launched from GDM, and commit. Today. If the answer is "yes," then we need to know who owns it. |
| 11:05 | tomeu | unmadindu: awesome, I can review, etc |
| 11:05 | gregdek | unmadindu: this is your item? |
| 11:05 | unmadindu | can someone give me an icon ? |
| 11:05 | gregdek: I need a icon | |
| 11:05 | looks at eben | |
| 11:05 | erikos | eben: ^^^ |
| 11:06 | eben | I can make an icon...are there any standard suggestions? |
| 11:06 | gregdek | eben seems hesitant. :) |
| 11:06 | tomeu | eben: dunno :/ |
| 11:07 | eben: an arrow exiting from a square? | |
| 11:07 | silbe | what about kdm et. al? |
| 11:07 | those wouldn't set GDMSESSION | |
| 11:08 | unmadindu | silbe: I:l see if I can handle KDM as well, but no promises ;-) |
| 11:08 | eben | Hmm....we could use the stroke/fill metaphor here, maybe....a white outline of an XO? |
| 11:08 | gregdek | eben: The international "exit" sign? The little dude running out of a burning building? :) |
| 11:08 | Anyway, I think we've got this one nailed. Ready to move on? | |
| 11:08 | mchua | eben: http://www.manucornet.net/GNOME/logout.png |
| 11:08 | gregdek | "screen issues like those in the control panel". tomeu? |
| 11:09 | tomeu | gregdek: plan to work on that today |
| 11:09 | erikos | gregdek: i think this can be seen as a bugfix as well ;p |
| 11:09 | tomeu | have my eeepc updated |
| 11:09 | true | |
| 11:09 | I don't plan to do anything fancy there | |
| 11:09 | erikos | ok, cool |
| 11:09 | tomeu | mainly reducing padding or adding scrollbars |
| 11:11 | erikos | ok, think we can move on then |
| 11:11 | gregdek | tomeu: So what's the work? Is this "feature" or "bugfix" or what? Any exposure to anything else? |
| 11:11 | tomeu | gregdek: can be considered bugfix |
| 11:11 | gregdek | Sounds like small tweaks, not really "feature-ish", low risk? |
| 11:11 | Okey doke. | |
| 11:11 | tomeu | right |
| 11:11 | gregdek | Moving on. |
| 11:12 | erikos | font size on other resolutions: have not worked on that |
| 11:12 | gregdek | So nothing for 0.84? |
| 11:12 | Push to 0.86? | |
| 11:12 | tomeu | I would say bugfix as well |
| 11:12 | gregdek | Oh, is it? |
| 11:12 | erikos | yup |
| 11:13 | gregdek | erikos? |
| 11:13 | tomeu | should be a matter of tweaking one value in one file |
| 11:13 | gregdek | OK. |
| 11:13 | Gotcha. | |
| 11:13 | tomeu | takes time testing in different hw and setups, that's most of it |
| 11:13 | gregdek | Well, that's what the entire beta process is for. ;) |
| 11:13 | Next: control panel resizing. | |
| 11:13 | tomeu | guess so, we'll have quite a bit of time |
| 11:14 | gregdek | erikos? control panel resizing? |
| 11:14 | erikos | gregdek: bugfix as well |
| 11:14 | gregdek | ok/ |
| 11:14 | "Better separation of XO features in the control panel so they can be removed for distros". morgs? | |
| 11:14 | erikos | the next one, i would be really fancy to get in |
| 11:15 | since it will effect string freeze | |
| 11:15 | tomeu | oh, true |
| 11:15 | eben | resizing? |
| 11:16 | erikos | this effects as well the power section in the control panel |
| 11:16 | tomeu | eben: calculating the right size, I think |
| 11:16 | based on the length of the text | |
| 11:16 | gregdek | Wait... |
| 11:16 | erikos | i just wonder how we can make this customizable by distros |
| 11:16 | gregdek | ...I'm confused. Which issue are we discussing? control panel resizing, or separation of XO features in control panel? |
| 11:16 | tomeu | erikos: I guess the right thing to do here is to autodetect the hardware |
| 11:16 | both | |
| 11:17 | confusing, eh? ;) | |
| 11:17 | erikos | gregdek: our design just interrupted again ;) |
| 11:17 | gregdek | :) |
| 11:17 | OK. | |
| 11:17 | erikos | tomeu: eben yup |
| 11:17 | gregdek | So are these changes invasive, or not? Both bugfixes, or not? |
| 11:17 | I can tag them both "bugfix". | |
| 11:18 | If it's actually true. :) | |
| 11:18 | tomeu | well, changes will be limited to that part of the code |
| 11:18 | specially the second | |
| 11:18 | gregdek | It's your release, folks. :) You tell me. |
| 11:18 | tomeu | wonder if we should just take out the power panel if it isn't the XO |
| 11:19 | that should be easy an safe | |
| 11:19 | erikos | tomeu: yeah that could be fixed like that |
| 11:19 | tomeu | gregdek: so bugfix |
| 11:19 | erikos | tomeu: About my computer is a bit harder |
| 11:19 | gregdek | So that's a very specific issue: "power panel". |
| 11:19 | tomeu | "hide power panel if not XO" |
| 11:19 | erikos | tomeu: but only the power panel is a bugfix |
| 11:19 | gregdek | The more general question, "Better separation of XO features in the control panel so they can be removed for distro", is unaddressed. |
| 11:20 | tomeu | erikos: yeah, though it's also a matter of hiding stuff when not in a XO, right? |
| 11:20 | gregdek: yeah, that would be the right fix, more sofisticated and probably less safe | |
| 11:20 | gregdek | hrms. |
| 11:20 | walterbender | and adding a few things (logout) |
| 11:21 | erikos | tomeu: yeah, i guess we can remove parts of the About section when not on an xo |
| 11:21 | tomeu | gregdek: we can fix those as bugs past the freeze, and take care of them properly for 0.86 |
| 11:21 | erikos | walterbender: well that would mean making the palette customizable |
| 11:22 | gregdek | Seems like it's dead easy to do a lot of simple hacks, and unclear complexity about how to "isolate" code paths based on "whether I'm an XO" or "whether I'm an eee" or other as-yet-unclear properties. |
| 11:22 | erikos | tomeu: no |
| 11:22 | tomeu: we need to change the name of the section | |
| 11:22 | tomeu | erikos: ok, that can be done now, right? |
| 11:22 | erikos | eben: is 'About my computer' ok with you? |
| 11:22 | tomeu | just change the string unconditionally |
| 11:22 | gregdek | Seems like there's a lot of complexity right under the surface here. Spidey sense tingling. |
| 11:22 | erikos | tomeu: jup - i just make sure it gets not lost |
| 11:23 | eben | erikos: yeah, that's fine |
| 11:23 | tomeu | gregdek: the right fix would be to have a generic way to autodetect hw capabilities |
| 11:23 | erikos | eben: or 'About my machine' :) |
| 11:23 | tomeu | gregdek: that can wait for 0.86 |
| 11:23 | eben | erikos: nah, computer is better |
| 11:23 | gregdek | tomeu: OK. I'll alter the feature description to say that. |
| 11:23 | tomeu | for now, it's enough to hide some UI components based on the existence of one file in the file system |
| 11:23 | erikos | eben: ok, taken! |
| 11:24 | gregdek | Updating... |
| 11:25 | erikos | gregdek: you can assign it to me |
| 11:25 | gregdek | OK. |
| 11:26 | "Adding buddies not tracked in the PS." | |
| 11:26 | Looks like we've already agreed to defer this? | |
| 11:26 | tomeu | 0.85 |
| 11:26 | yeah, haven't started work on it | |
| 11:26 | would be really cool, but... | |
| 11:26 | gregdek | Okey doke. |
| 11:26 | So... | |
| 11:27 | ...what's the practical difference between saying "0.85" and "0.86"? | |
| 11:27 | I don't want to confuse things unnecessarily. | |
| 11:27 | We will track everything we defer against 0.86, although we will obviously do the work in 0.85. Yes? | |
| 11:27 | tomeu | not sure |
| 11:28 | erikos | i think it make sense to call things a 0.86 feature |
| 11:28 | tomeu | I guess work in 0.86 is only stabilizing what was done in 0.85 |
| 11:28 | gregdek | So when we say "defer to 0.86", we mean "work in 0.85, release in 0.86". |
| 11:28 | All right. | |
| 11:28 | updates wiki again. | |
| 11:29 | Moving on: | |
| 11:29 | Continue FT implementation in Gabble. cassidy? | |
| 11:29 | Or anyone? | |
| 11:30 | cassidy | gregdek: no progress atm. I've been pre-empted to work on others (tubes related) tasks. Someone else is suppose to start to work on it soonish |
| 11:30 | gregdek | OK, so deferring to 0.86. |
| 11:31 | And then the activities.sl.o stuff is separate. | |
| 11:31 | cassidy | anyway, Sugar can still implement FT. The option would be just disabled if the CM doesn't support it |
| 11:31 | gregdek | Got it. |
| 11:31 | cassidy | we provide API to see if the CM supports FT or not |
| 11:32 | tomeu | still need to implement that |
| 11:32 | cassidy | in Empathy we greyed the FT button if it doesn't |
| 11:32 | Sugar could do something similar | |
| 11:32 | gregdek | Pardon my ignorance -- what is FT? |
| 11:32 | cassidy | file transfer |
| 11:32 | gregdek | Ah, ok. |
| 11:33 | So. | |
| 11:33 | That's the feature list. Any that we missed? | |
| 11:33 | Any not reflected on that list that we need to discuss? | |
| 11:33 | tomeu | nope |
| 11:33 | gregdek | All right. |
| 11:34 | The only one of those features that highlighted collaboration was the File Transfer feature, and that got deferred. Should we be concerned about that? | |
| 11:34 | tomeu | gregdek: we have FT on salut (LAN) |
| 11:35 | gregdek | Oh, is that new for 0.84? |
| 11:35 | Already reflected somewhere? | |
| 11:35 | tomeu | also, if a distro shipping sugar 0.84 happens to ship a gabble with FT, FT in sugar will work with that as well |
| 11:35 | without any extra coding | |
| 11:35 | gregdek: in git ;) | |
| 11:35 | though I blogged about it when I was working on it | |
| 11:35 | gregdek | tomeu: Perhaps we should add a trac ticket for the release notes? :) |
| 11:36 | Since that appears to be our process? :) | |
| 11:36 | tomeu | gregdek: if you find time to play with it and can file tickets would be nice, I'm sure the UI could be more polished |
| 11:36 | gregdek: I don't think we have now a process for tracking what to put in the release notes | |
| 11:36 | gregdek | Hmm, ok. |
| 11:36 | Need to think about that, then. | |
| 11:36 | tomeu | perhaps a single trac ticket would be enough? |
| 11:36 | gregdek | Probably. |
| 11:36 | tomeu | to list all the stuff needs to be in the release notes? |
| 11:37 | or a wiki page, not sure which advantage would have trac | |
| 11:37 | gregdek | In the meantime, we're at 1:40 meeting time. Plenty of time to discuss release management process later. :) |
| 11:37 | erikos | tomeu: well we have the release notes from each development release |
| 11:37 | tomeu: and there it does show up | |
| 11:38 | gregdek: i did make sure all the development release notes were accurate - to build the final release notes from | |
| 11:38 | tomeu | erikos: yeah, but I guess greg meant to note it down now so we remember later |
| 11:38 | gregdek | erikos: Brilliant. |
| 11:38 | tomeu | oooh |
| 11:38 | erikos: git it, you are right | |
| 11:38 | s/git/got | |
| 11:38 | erikos | tomeu: git it too ;p |
| 11:38 | gregdek | Any other business for today's meeting? |
| 11:38 | tomeu | yeah |
| 11:39 | c) | |
| 11:39 | c) How long to support "old" versions of Sugar (Debian lenny might ship 0.82) | |
| 11:39 | silbe: I would say depends on the interest and the available resources | |
| 11:39 | like with any distro or sugar release | |
| 11:40 | erikos | how does gnome handle that? |
| 11:40 | (i mean they have other resources, but in general) | |
| 11:40 | tomeu | no idea |
| 11:40 | gregdek | No idea. |
| 11:40 | erikos | and what does 'support' mean exactly |
| 11:41 | gregdek | "Will you please backport this fix?" |
| 11:41 | tomeu | maybe are distros the oens that support that stuff? |
| 11:41 | silbe | well, mostly reacting to bug reports |
| 11:41 | gregdek | It's gonna be a case-by-case basis, I think. |
| 11:41 | cjb | likes the {Fedora,Ubuntu} {N, N-1} idea |
| 11:41 | tomeu | silbe: so that's a business of the bugsquad |
| 11:41 | ? | |
| 11:41 | silbe | and for activity authors probably making stuff that's only in newer releases optional |
| 11:41 | gregdek | I don't think we're mature enough to have much policy around this question yet. |
| 11:41 | cjb | and other distros can package, of course, but we'll make sure we don't break deps for those |
| 11:42 | erikos | gregdek: yeah :/ |
| 11:42 | tomeu | cjb: though is that good for upstream projects like gnome and sugar? |
| 11:42 | cjb | tomeu: hm? |
| 11:42 | silbe | not sure what your bugsquad does exactly |
| 11:42 | cjb | tomeu: oh, maybe I wasn't clear |
| 11:42 | I mean that Sugar should make sure it always works on the latest and one-before-that of Fedora and Ubuntu | |
| 11:42 | erikos | silbe: being responsive to bug reports and triaging them |
| 11:43 | cjb | i.e. we refuse new deps that would break any of those |
| 11:43 | tomeu | cjb: oh |
| 11:43 | cjb: sounds good | |
| 11:43 | gregdek | Here's what the bugsquad SHOULD do: (a) they should test latest released versions and file bugs, which should be fixed primarily in development. (b) they should test betas and file bugs, which should be fixed primarily in development. |
| 11:43 | silbe | erikos: do they import patches as well? |
| 11:43 | cjb | I guess there's a question about whether the "latest" Fedora would count as F10 or F11 |
| 11:43 | probably F10 | |
| 11:43 | gregdek | Yep. |
| 11:43 | erikos | silbe: no, they need to communicate that then with the devs |
| 11:44 | silbe | so policy for bugsquad is not to support older releases ("which should be fixed primarily in development")? |
| 11:44 | tomeu | cjb: yeah, we develop in F10 and intrepid for F11 and jaunty, and depend on the platform we develop in |
| 11:44 | gregdek | silbe: It's not bugsquad's job to figure out where the fixes go. That's development's job. |
| 11:44 | silbe: And whether *development* chooses to backport a fix is a different question. | |
| 11:45 | cjb | tomeu: but should we support F9 too, or just F10/F11? |
| 11:45 | gregdek | Which will probably be a function of: |
| 11:45 | silbe | ok, so this topic is more about development than about the bugsquad |
| 11:45 | gregdek | (a) severity; (b) available hands; (c) age. |
| 11:45 | erikos | silbe: yes |
| 11:45 | tomeu | cjb: I don't think 0.84 should be able to run in F9 |
| 11:45 | cjb | ok |
| 11:45 | so what I said about | |
| 11:45 | n, n-1 released versions isn't tue | |
| 11:45 | true | |
| 11:45 | tomeu | cjb: GNOME and other deps are converging quickly to what we want |
| 11:46 | cjb | we're instead saying that we'll support the *latest* released version of Fedora and Ubuntu, but not the previous ones |
| 11:46 | tomeu | cjb: well, F10 will ship with 0.82, but I don't think 0.84 will depend on anything not in F10 |
| 11:46 | cjb | there was a guy in #sugar yesterday asking for help running jhbuild in F9 |
| 11:46 | tomeu | cjb: yeah, more like that |
| 11:46 | jhbuild is different | |
| 11:46 | cjb | and he seemed to think it was unreasonable that we didn't support F9 any more |
| 11:47 | tomeu | well, we may support jhbuild in F9 quite easily |
| 11:47 | cjb | because it was only released ~7 months ago |
| 11:47 | tomeu | he just needs to compile inside jhbuild gtk, etc |
| 11:47 | cjb | yeah, I think he did get it working eventually |
| 11:47 | tomeu | but we need someone who runs that distro to maintain the sysdeps file updated |
| 11:47 | gregdek | Yeah, jhbuild is really a separate topic. |
| 11:48 | silbe | and what about 0.84 and following on the latest debian release (i.e. lenny)? soon unsupported because too old? |
| 11:48 | erikos | i think we can say that our 'support' is really driven by resources |
| 11:48 | tomeu | but about supporting stuff in general, we can support more thing if more people jump on the train |
| 11:48 | gregdek | Since the point of jhbuild is to be able to rebuild your entire dependency map, we need to make sure that jhbuild actually does that. |
| 11:48 | tomeu | if we are half a dozen cats, then we cannot support all the distros in the world |
| 11:49 | gregdek: there's a xml file that specifies what needs to be built and what needs to be installed in each distro release | |
| 11:49 | gregdek: we need people running older releases to maintain those files | |
| 11:49 | gregdek | tomeu: Yep. |
| 11:49 | Lemme take that process on. | |
| 11:50 | tomeu | gregdek: like this: http://git.sugarlabs.org/proje[…]eps/fedora-10.xml |
| 11:50 | gregdek | I'm about to run jhbuild for F10 myself. It'll be the first time I've done jhbuild in over a year. :) |
| 11:50 | tomeu | gregdek: nice, await a flood of tickets ;) |
| 11:50 | silbe | gregdek: good look. squeakvm.org is down ATM :-/ |
| 11:50 | gregdek | LOL! |
| 11:50 | Ah, squeak. The perpetual breaker of jhbuild. ;) | |
| 11:50 | silbe | s/look/luck/ |
| 11:51 | gregdek | The more things change, the more they remain the same. |
| 11:51 | tomeu | gregdek: any idea when people will start testing 0.83 in rawhide? |
| 11:51 | bertf | silbe: use --skip squeak |
| 11:51 | gregdek | tomeu: When we ask them to? :) |
| 11:51 | silbe | bertf: i just used "skip module" manually. fortunately only some meta package depended on it |
| 11:52 | gregdek | All right, gents, unless there's any more pressing business, I've got to call this meeting and prep for my next one. Any objections? |
| 11:52 | tomeu | gregdek: any luck finding packagers? |
| 11:52 | we are going to release today or tomorrow | |
| 11:53 | gregdek | tomeu: I've been focusing more on OLPC packagers, tbh. |
| 11:53 | tomeu | gregdek: hmm, couldn't be the same? |
| 11:53 | gregdek | tomeu: Could be, yes. |
| 11:53 | I will bring it up in the next meeting. | |
| 11:53 | tomeu | oh, wait |
| 11:53 | gregdek | Who is currently doing the packaging? |
| 11:53 | tomeu | gregdek: OLPC packagers won't be putting 0.83 in rawhide? |
| 11:53 | erikos | gregdek: me |
| 11:53 | gregdek | It should just be a matter of taking over spec files, yes? |
| 11:53 | tomeu | that's exactly what we want |
| 11:54 | I thought the plan of record was dumping OLPC-4 and working only in rawhide | |
| 11:54 | so the next OLPC release would be based on F11 | |
| 11:54 | gregdek | That is correct. |
| 11:55 | tomeu | ok, so that's awesome |
| 11:55 | we are all happy :) | |
| 11:55 | gregdek | And my next meeting to discuss that is in less than an hour, so I've got to go. :) |
| 11:57 | silbe | @all: thanks for the infos (and sugar in general, of course). got to go as well, shop closing soon. |
| 11:57 | tomeu | silbe: see you |
| 11:57 | erikos | silbe: hope to have better answers to your support request soon |
| 11:57 | gregdek | So then: |
| 11:57 | Meeting ends in 5... | |
| 11:57 | 4... | |
| 11:57 | 3... | |
| 11:57 | 2... | |
| 11:57 | 1... | |
| 11:57 | 1/2... | |
| 11:58 | #endmeeting |
