| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 20:03 | meeting | Meeting started Sun Mar 20 20:03:00 2011 UTC. The chair is walterbender. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 20:03 | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting | |
| 20:03 | silbe | garycmartin: thanks, see you next week! |
| 20:03 | garycmartin | Thanks all, sorry I have to dash, will look at the log! |
| 20:03 | garycmartin has quit IRC | |
| 20:03 | silbe | walterbender: can you set the topic, please? |
| 20:03 | walterbender | #info gary had to leave... but we will continue for one more topic |
| 20:04 | #topic What date should the activities list view show for pre-installed activities? | |
| 20:04 | silbe | #link http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10487 OLPC#10487: Activity Installation time wrong (activity list view) |
| 20:04 | #link http://lists.laptop.org/piperm[…]thread.html#31544 Patch discussion: Do not adjust dates of activities | |
| 20:05 | walterbender | IMHO, the relevant date is the Activity modification date... it tells the user how recent a version they are running. |
| 20:05 | and if they modify the activity themselves, it highlights that fact too | |
| 20:06 | silbe | walterbender: but what is the "modification date" for activities that came with the OS image and were neither started nor modified yet? |
| 20:06 | christianmarcsch | walterbender: +1 |
| 20:06 | silbe: in that case, wouldn't we use the date of installation? | |
| 20:07 | silbe | christianmarcsch: that's exactly the question |
| 20:07 | christianmarcsch | sllbe: i think that would make sense. we'd seed them with the date of installation, and override once they have been instantiated |
| 20:07 | walterbender | silbe: is there no way to include the modification date in the build? |
| 20:09 | m_anish_afk is now known as m_anish | |
| 20:09 | silbe | The options I can think of are: 1. use date of last modification from source tarball, 2. use time of OS image build, 3. use time of first Sugar start-up, 4. use some artificial time in the past. Current OLPC implement the last option AFAIK. |
| 20:10 | s/AFAIK// (just checked again) | |
| 20:10 | walterbender | I prefer #1 |
| 20:12 | and it would be consistant | |
| 20:13 | christianmarcsch | wouldn't #2 make more sense for the user though? |
| 20:13 | maybe it's not totally consistent internally, but to the user the only thing that matters is when they started using the system | |
| 20:13 | walterbender | christianmarcsch: why? |
| 20:14 | christianmarcsch: I would think that they'd want to know the version of TA they were running was 2-years old on their new release.... | |
| 20:15 | christianmarcsch | walterbender: i suppose you are right |
| 20:15 | walterbender | so they could berate the developer to get off the stick... |
| 20:15 | christianmarcsch | walterbender: :) |
| 20:15 | but | |
| 20:16 | once someone starts using the activity, would it switch to the date of last instantiation? | |
| 20:16 | walterbender | christianmarcsch: shouldn't... |
| 20:16 | christianmarcsch | walterbender: ok, then it makes sense |
| 20:16 | walterbender | running an activity doesn't update the activity, just the journal instance |
| 20:17 | christianmarcsch | walterbender: perfect, ok. just needed to understand that. |
| 20:18 | walterbender | silbe: correct me if I am wrong, but we are talking about the date of the activities shown in the list view |
| 20:18 | silbe | walterbender: exactly. List View of the Home View. |
| 20:19 | walterbender | christianmarcsch: this is what determines the order in the circle/spiral or the list in the list view |
| 20:20 | christianmarcsch | walterbender: right, that makes sense |
| 20:20 | walterbender | thinks the list view should show most recent first, because those are the ones you'd likely be working on... |
| 20:21 | silbe: is there anything re #1 that is controversial (or a headache technically?) | |
| 20:22 | silbe | walterbender: not to me :) Check http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10487 for other opinions |
| 20:22 | walterbender: the technical side of things is solvable | |
| 20:23 | walterbender | silbe: I didn't understand the issue with Gary's side-effect. |
| 20:23 | silbe | we just need to agree on how it _should_ work, and I'll take care of making Sugar _do_ work like it |
| 20:23 | walterbender | silbe: if the activity is touched, presumably it is for a reason |
| 20:24 | silbe | walterbender: I'll try to figure out where and maybe why it's touched. Off the top of my head I don't see a technical reason to do so. |
| 20:24 | walterbender | silbe: seems like there was *almost* consensus on #1 in the ticket (as I recall) |
| 20:25 | silbe: with a few people wanting some additional info available (which I think is needless complexity) | |
| 20:25 | silbe | walterbender: iff we want to provide additional information, we should handle that as a separate topic IMO |
| 20:26 | walterbender | silbe: agreed |
| 20:26 | silbe | (I too think it's too complex for the list view; at this point we can just refer users to the Terminal) |
| 20:26 | walterbender | silbe: re Gary's side effect, as an activity developer, I like it... the things I am working on show up at the start of my spiral. |
| 20:27 | silbe | walterbender: what exactly do you call "Gary's side effect"? That an activity gets sorted in front if you just use it, without modifying it? |
| 20:28 | walterbender: if you modify the activity, #1 would show it at the top (list view) / inner-most (spiral) | |
| 20:29 | walterbender | silbe: we need clarification, but he describes "when you use an activity the folder gets touched" but is this true? |
| 20:29 | silbe | tries |
| 20:30 | walterbender | has never seen that behavior |
| 20:30 | silbe | oh, I had the sort order reversed in my mind it seems: the list view currently shows the oldest activity first |
| 20:31 | walterbender | silbe: yes... which I think is the opposite of what we want... but the oldest is on the outside of the spiral, which I think is correct. |
| 20:32 | silbe | walterbender: confirmed, it does get touched. |
| 20:32 | walterbender | silbe: but running an activity has no impact on the order as far as I know |
| 20:32 | silbe ??? | |
| 20:32 | satellit_afk is now known as satellit_ | |
| 20:33 | walterbender | silbe: is that modification time or access time? |
| 20:33 | silbe | walterbender: it gets even stranger: in the list view, the just-run activity gets sorted somewhere in the middle (after a Sugar restart) |
| 20:34 | walterbender: ls uses mtime by default | |
| 20:34 | walterbender: (i.e. mtime gets changed) | |
| 20:34 | walterbender | silbe: hmm. I cannot say I ever noticed that before. It is a bug. |
| 20:35 | why does running an activity modify the directory? | |
| 20:35 | silbe | walterbender: I guess we should just agree on how it's supposed to behave and fix Sugar so it does behave the newly specified way. |
| 20:35 | The current behaviour definitely is a bug. I can't imagine any spec saying "sort a recently-run activity in the middle" ;) | |
| 20:35 | walterbender | silbe: it makes no sense for activities to be modified when they are run |
| 20:35 | silbe | walterbender: +1 |
| 20:35 | satellit_ | any ideas about Give priority to last installed activity by date installed and not version number? |
| 20:36 | silbe | satellit_: the activities list view doesn't look like it's sorted by version number |
| 20:37 | walterbender | satellit_: how do you have both at once? two instances of the same activity? Sugar doesn't support that, does it? |
| 20:37 | satellit_ | but browse-120 from updates precludes running browse-119.xo installed later |
| 20:37 | walterbender | satellit_: does it prevent running or installation? |
| 20:37 | silbe | we sort it by internal order of the bundle registry (I'm sure about that part, filed a bug about it some months ago). IIRC the internal order of the bundle registry is based on the activity mtime... |
| 20:38 | satellit_ | so an update may install a non-fuctioning non removable activity |
| 20:38 | silbe | satellit_: that's a separate issue. |
| 20:38 | satellit_ | prevents running .xo of earlier version |
| 20:38 | walterbender | satellit_: yeah... but that is a different topic, I think |
| 20:38 | satellit_ | ok |
| 20:38 | silbe | satellit_: we should talk about that some time as well, but not now. |
| 20:39 | walterbender | silbe: do we have consensus re modification time and that running an activity shouldn't modify the activity??? |
| 20:39 | silbe: any idea why the latter is happening? | |
| 20:39 | silbe | walterbender: +1 from me. christianmarcsch? |
| 20:39 | walterbender: not yet, but I'll figure it out. | |
| 20:39 | christianmarcsch | silbe: +1 |
| 20:39 | walterbender | looks to see what was touched in Pippy |
| 20:40 | silbe | ok, nice. Can we agree on it? Gary can still chime in via email and we can reconsider if necessary. |
| 20:40 | walterbender | silbe: ah.. it is the .pyc files of course |
| 20:41 | wonders if there is a way to ignore those. | |
| 20:42 | silbe | walterbender: ah, I see. There are ways to either avoid that or at least ignore it, though. |
| 20:42 | walterbender | silbe: I think we should ignore them... it is misleading |
| 20:42 | wonders how, without having to walk through the entire tree | |
| 20:43 | silbe | do we have consensus on how it should work? |
| 20:44 | walterbender | yes |
| 20:45 | silbe: I will update the ticket with a pointer to this discussion. | |
| 20:45 | silbe | walterbender: thanks. Can you add a #agree <description of consensus> so it turns up in the minutes, please? (#agreed is restricted to the chair) |
| 20:46 | s/#agree/#agreed/ | |
| 20:46 | walterbender | silbe: or not, because I cannot write to tickets at OLPC anymore :( |
| 20:46 | #agreed that modification date is the proper date to list and sort on | |
| 20:46 | silbe | walterbender: you should have received a token via email when you logged in. |
| 20:47 | christianmarcsch | walterbender, silbe: i will need to leave soon--were there any other issues you wanted to go over? |
| 20:47 | silbe | walterbender: they recently enabled email address verification to counter spam |
| 20:47 | walterbender | #agreed that we should fix the "bug" that considers .pyc file generation a modification to an activity |
| 20:47 | silbe: yes... and I never get the verification in my email... | |
| 20:47 | silbe | christianmarcsch: not for today. We already took much more time than I wanted. |
| 20:47 | walterbender: :-/ spam folder? | |
| 20:48 | walterbender | christianmarcsch, silbe: next week, same time... |
| 20:48 | looked there... will look again. | |
| 20:48 | christianmarcsch | sounds great. see you next week! |
| 20:48 | silbe | walterbender: thx! (for the #agreed's) |
| 20:48 | christianmarcsch has quit IRC | |
| 20:48 | silbe | thanks everybody for joining, see you next week! |
| 20:48 | walterbender | silbe: not in my spam folder :P |
| 20:48 | OK. CU | |
| 20:48 | #end-meeting | |
| 20:48 | meeting | Meeting ended Sun Mar 20 20:48:49 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4) |
| 20:48 | Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-20T20:03:00.html | |
| 20:48 | Log: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]11-03-20T20:03:00 |