Time |
Nick |
Message |
10:10 |
tomeu |
#topic welcome newcomers |
10:11 |
|
do we have any new people in the meeting? |
10:11 |
|
counts to five |
10:11 |
mk8 |
tomeu: I hope to follow all the meeting today |
10:11 |
alsroot |
here |
10:12 |
satellit_ |
listening |
10:12 |
tomeu |
mk8 is not a newcomer, but maybe is not known by everybody yet? |
10:13 |
silbe |
mk8: go ahead and introduce yourself, please. |
10:13 |
|
so we can start with the meeting :) |
10:14 |
tomeu |
isn't obligatory, but would be a way of inaugurating this permanent topic |
10:14 |
mk8 |
ok silbe, I'm follow the sugar project from some years and for it I develop the sugar-sharp a modulo to allow to write activity in mono |
10:14 |
tomeu |
and you also coded a fuse plugin for the DS |
10:14 |
mk8 |
and fsgateway that is a fuse module to access to the sugar datastore from outside sugar, like a normal filesystem |
10:14 |
|
also writte in mono |
10:15 |
|
s/writte/written |
10:15 |
silbe |
ah, the mono filesystem guy :D |
10:15 |
erikos_ |
is around |
10:16 |
tomeu |
ok, so next topic: |
10:16 |
|
(unless we have more presentations) |
10:16 |
|
#topic 0.88 Release: hard code freeze, final release, 0.88.1 |
10:16 |
|
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/D[…]m/Release/Roadmap |
10:16 |
erikos_ |
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0[…]/Roadmap#Schedule |
10:17 |
|
tomeu: may I? |
10:17 |
tomeu |
sure |
10:17 |
erikos_ |
As you see in the 0.88 schedule: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0[…]/Roadmap#Schedule |
10:17 |
|
we are in hard code freeze at the moment |
10:17 |
|
this means: No source code changes can be made without approval from the release-team. Translation and documentation can continue. |
10:18 |
|
any questions about the hard code freeze? |
10:18 |
tomeu |
no questions from here |
10:18 |
erikos_ |
(approval can be gained by asking for an exception on the sugar-devel mailing list) |
10:18 |
|
ok |
10:19 |
|
the next tarballs will be produced by next monday |
10:19 |
|
all the exceptions must therefore land by then |
10:19 |
|
(landing includes reviewing the patch of course) |
10:19 |
|
so waht do we need to do during that weeK: |
10:20 |
|
a) testing - I started to put together the site: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0[…]ing#Testing_plans |
10:20 |
|
that will be announced today |
10:20 |
|
b) see if there are critical bugs and fix them |
10:21 |
|
c) finish the release notes at: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.88/Notes |
10:21 |
|
that's mainly what we need to do for the 0.88 release |
10:21 |
|
now one may ask: "What if my bug is not a show stopper, but I want to include it as it is important?" |
10:21 |
walterbender |
erikos_: nice |
10:21 |
erikos_ |
there will be a bug fix release |
10:22 |
silbe_ |
goes reading the backlog (IRC connection timed out) |
10:22 |
erikos_ |
at Apr 28 |
10:22 |
|
so, fixes can go in there |
10:22 |
|
any questions about the bugfix release? |
10:24 |
|
waits.... :) |
10:24 |
satellit_ |
bug 1835 |
10:24 |
|
oops |
10:24 |
erikos_ |
ok, so let's see... |
10:25 |
tomeu |
erikos_: should we get a list of the bugs we want in the bugfix release? |
10:25 |
erikos_ |
silbe: what would you do if you find today a 'major' bug not a show stopper? |
10:25 |
|
picked sascha randomly of course |
10:25 |
tomeu |
sees erikos is in teacher mode |
10:25 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: curse the one who introduced the bug :-P |
10:25 |
erikos_ |
silbe: that would be a god start ;p |
10:26 |
|
tomeu: yeah that would be great - we can start now with it, if you want |
10:26 |
|
sdziallas: shhhh |
10:26 |
|
sdziallas: has the yellow card ;p |
10:26 |
sdziallas |
erikos_: mhm? |
10:26 |
tomeu |
maybe we have enough time? |
10:27 |
erikos_ |
would be fine with me |
10:27 |
|
sdziallas: i am just kidding |
10:27 |
tomeu |
do people have any tickets in their minds for the bugfix release? |
10:28 |
sdziallas |
erikos_: blahblah :) |
10:28 |
tomeu |
and even features, but those should have very strong support from deployments |
10:28 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: http://tinyurl.com/yb65glf |
10:29 |
|
tomeu: maybe we can start with the open reviews |
10:29 |
tomeu |
good idea |
10:29 |
silbe_ |
I've got a data store fix for rainbow support that would be a good candidate for 0.88.1; will commit it after I finish testing. |
10:30 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: |
10:30 |
|
ok |
10:30 |
tomeu |
http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1719 depending on how often can the race happen |
10:30 |
|
" resume journal entry race may duplicate resumed activity id" |
10:30 |
erikos_ |
yeah |
10:30 |
tomeu |
btw, should be branching soonish? |
10:30 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: I commented in the ticket what I have found out so far |
10:31 |
tomeu |
do people want to start pushing 0.90 stuff? |
10:31 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: thought about that, too |
10:31 |
silbe_ |
that's one I probably encountered during testing and that made me fix the bug I cannot reproduce right now ;) |
10:31 |
tomeu |
silbe_: cannot make the race more probable by adding a time.sleep()? |
10:32 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: yes, please fork soon so I can finally fix those pesky pylint+PEP8 complaints |
10:32 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: I think we have a few features and enhancements that we did not land in 0.88 |
10:32 |
|
tomeu: I would like to push them early in 0.90 - so they do not miss the boat again |
10:32 |
tomeu |
erikos_: silbe_: ok, sounds good to fork early, push to 0.90, and think if we want anything backported to 0.88.x |
10:32 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: right, those I think would be good as well |
10:33 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: the problem was finding out how to enter the code path that got the second bug - I can produce a duplicated data store entry manually |
10:33 |
|
erikos_: +1 |
10:33 |
tomeu |
pushing cleanups will make harder to backport, but well |
10:34 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: yeah, that is true - but as backports should not be invasive... |
10:34 |
tomeu |
yeah, no big deal |
10:35 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: that's always the case, and we already delayed the style fixes for two releases, i.e. over a year. |
10:35 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: silbe_ I would say to directly branch after 0.88.0 |
10:35 |
tomeu |
sounds good |
10:35 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: sounds like a plan |
10:35 |
tomeu |
silbe_: sure |
10:35 |
erikos_ |
nice |
10:36 |
|
ok, let's go back to the tickets... |
10:36 |
|
silbe_: 1659 - 0.88.x or 0.90 ? |
10:38 |
silbe_ |
looks |
10:39 |
|
erikos_: let's move it to 0.90, but early so it finally gets more testing |
10:39 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: ok |
10:39 |
|
silbe_: 1755 ? |
10:40 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: 0.88.1 |
10:41 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: sounds ok with me - tomeu? |
10:41 |
|
tomeu: re #1755 |
10:42 |
tomeu |
yeah, it's annoying |
10:42 |
erikos_ |
ok |
10:43 |
|
#1755: tch, Daniel said it would be great to land it in 0.88.1 - the bugfix release |
10:43 |
|
tch: do you agree that it is for your deployment important? |
10:44 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: wrong ticket? |
10:44 |
|
*ticket number |
10:44 |
tomeu |
guess http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1759 |
10:45 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: tomeu thanks |
10:45 |
|
tch: I mean 1759 |
10:45 |
|
silbe_: tomeu 1823 can even go into 0.88 - as it does not touches code |
10:46 |
tomeu |
sounds good |
10:46 |
silbe_ |
has it been rebased and cleaned up as requested? (17599) |
10:47 |
|
erikos_: +1 on 1823 |
10:47 |
|
it's not perfect, but way better than what we have now |
10:47 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: yeah, Daniel has been doing some work on 1759 |
10:48 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: ok, then no objection from me :) |
10:48 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: 1438 - can we have a milestone here? |
10:48 |
tch |
erikos: yeah, i think is important to have some feedback when something goes wrong while using 3g |
10:49 |
erikos_ |
tch: yeah, what is a bit pitty is that documentation will change :/ |
10:49 |
|
one month after the release.... |
10:50 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: let's make it 0.90 for now. Maybe 0.88.x later. |
10:50 |
erikos_ |
as much as I like to land it, I am somehow as well worried |
10:51 |
|
tomeu: what do you think? |
10:52 |
tomeu |
dunno, depends on how much are deployments interested |
10:52 |
|
it could go in when OLPC makes a build with 0.88, for example |
10:52 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: we should at least include the error showing stuff. |
10:52 |
tomeu |
so in 2 years :p |
10:53 |
erikos_ |
hehe |
10:53 |
silbe_ |
not sure about the design change - it makes sense to change is ASAP so people don't get used to the "bad" one, but the docs change is a good point. |
10:54 |
erikos_ |
I would even prefer to land it with an exception...because of the doc change |
10:54 |
tomeu |
so, am I right if I say that developers want to have their code in HEAD and are deployers who should request backports? |
10:54 |
silbe_ |
has anybody done documentation for the 3G stuff? |
10:54 |
tch |
erikos_: is it a big doc change? |
10:54 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: I would do today for the 0.88 page |
10:55 |
tomeu |
hmm, maybe we should add the documentation team coordinator to the jobs page in the wiki |
10:55 |
erikos_ |
tch: mainly here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.88/Notes |
10:55 |
walterbender |
tomeu: good idea... someone to coordinate with the various deployments |
10:55 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: yeah, that would be a highly regarded position |
10:56 |
tomeu |
added to http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/V[…]mporary_caretaker |
10:56 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: deployers should get a say what gets actually backported, but I'd prefer not relying on them to actively request backports. |
10:56 |
walterbender |
tomeu: it would be nice to know what sorts of materials could be produced by an individual that would be of the most use to deployments... |
10:56 |
tomeu |
walterbender: well, we already have the deployment team vacancy |
10:56 |
walterbender |
will put the thumb screws to Rafael. |
10:56 |
tomeu |
I guess the documentation work could be included in the deployment team, or have its own team |
10:57 |
|
whatever works better for the people who will do the actual work |
10:58 |
|
silbe_: maybe you are thinking about a particular kind of bugs that can be backported without their participation? |
10:58 |
|
such as security bugs, data loss, etc |
10:59 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: sounds good |
10:59 |
|
stuff like the data store bugs I've discovered recently |
10:59 |
tomeu |
yeah, that makes sense |
10:59 |
|
3 minutes to go |
11:00 |
silbe_ |
(and that still need test cases as the test suite didn't notice them0 |
11:00 |
tomeu |
erikos_: are you done? |
11:00 |
|
silbe_: when will you push the test suite? |
11:00 |
erikos_ |
ok, how do we move on with http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1759 ? |
11:00 |
silbe_ |
ok, what about the exceptions then? |
11:00 |
erikos_ |
Daniel_C: around? |
11:00 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: see above, 0.90 |
11:00 |
tomeu |
erikos_: I would say to push it to 0.90, then backport if people actually ask for it |
11:02 |
silbe_ |
tomeu: why? |
11:02 |
Daniel_C |
i am here, is ok for my. I think that Paraguay and Uruguay will need it in a short time |
11:02 |
tomeu |
silbe_: because I hadn't heard anybody pushing for it |
11:02 |
tch |
erikos_: i think it worth it to add it asap |
11:02 |
tomeu |
now, after what Daniel_C said, we could push it for 0.88.1 |
11:03 |
erikos_ |
tomeu: and tch ;p |
11:03 |
tomeu |
Daniel_C, tch: you want it backported to 0.84, right? |
11:03 |
tch |
i did it already with bernie, |
11:03 |
|
until the last patch included in the head, |
11:04 |
erikos_ |
tch: the 3G Feature including 1759? |
11:04 |
tch |
no, only what have been "upstreamed"? |
11:04 |
erikos_ |
ok, that is good policy |
11:05 |
|
s/policy/habbit |
11:05 |
tch |
i would backport 1759 also ;) |
11:05 |
Daniel_C |
tch: Do you think that ticket 1759 is necesary? |
11:05 |
tch |
soon as it is upstream |
11:06 |
silbe_ |
so do we agree 1759 should go into 0.88.1? at least the error showing part? |
11:06 |
tch |
tch: i know it is |
11:06 |
|
Daniel_C: ^ |
11:07 |
tomeu |
needs to go for a while |
11:08 |
Daniel_C |
silbe_: so, we agree |
11:08 |
erikos_ |
ok, let's decide and finish here |
11:08 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: when do we decide about the exceptions? |
11:08 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: for 0.88.1? |
11:08 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: no, for 0.88 |
11:09 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: are there some open? |
11:09 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: the data store migration fix? |
11:09 |
|
0.82 -> 0.86/0.88 |
11:09 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: was agreed on the ml |
11:09 |
|
silbe_: got +1'ed |
11:09 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: ah, ok, must have been today. |
11:10 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: right, today |
11:10 |
silbe_ |
erikos_: ok, then I'm done for today. We should discuss review handling at a future meeting. |
11:10 |
erikos_ |
silbe_: fine with me |
11:11 |
|
tomeu: I guess you can close the meeting then |
11:11 |
tomeu |
#endmeeting |