Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2012-08-21 14:59:21

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
14:59 meeting_ Meeting started Tue Aug 21 14:59:21 2012 UTC. The chair is erikos. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:59 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
14:59 erikos who is around for the dev meting?
14:59 humitos erikos: me
14:59 erikos hi
15:01 pflores in background
15:02 garycmartin but only just hanging on to network!
15:03 erikos garycmartin: ok ;p
15:03 Agenda:
15:03 - introducing new contributors
15:04 - 0.98 Feature proposal deadline
15:04 - follow up the shell port: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/GTK3/Shell (manuq)
15:04 - follow up the touch support in the shell: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/F[…]Touch/Development (erikos)
15:04 - follow up the activities port, touch addition (including gestures), releasing of new activities (gonzalo)
15:04 - review process and code acceptance policy (silbe)
15:04 gonzalo_ hello
15:05 erikos humitos: I don't think vmeta is a Sugar subject in the first place
15:05 humitos: gonzalo_ or is it?
15:05 humitos erikos: ok, I wasn't sure... thanks
15:06 erikos ok, let's start then
15:06 gonzalo_ erikos, no erikos, wrong topic
15:06 erikos #topic: 0.98 Feature proposal deadline
15:06 mtd erikos: (hi, here)
15:07 lurks
15:07 erikos hey mtd, nice to see you!
15:07 http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0[…]/Roadmap#Schedule
15:07 http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.98/Feature_List
15:08 mtd erikos: same here :)
15:08 erikos if you work on a Feature for 0.98, and it should be there ^
15:08 cjl mumbles something indistinct and slouches in the back of the room
15:08 erikos deadline was yesterday, so you better tell that now
15:09 ajay: from your reading, the Journal multi-select one should be there, right?
15:09 s/reading/mails
15:10 ok, questions about that?
15:10 dirakx <dirakx!~rafael@190.159.157.143> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:10 erikos ok, next item then
15:10 #topic follow up the shell port: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/GTK3/Shell (manuq)
15:11 manuq: please :)
15:11 manuq so, shell port
15:11 in libxklavier the API we needed was added, I still have to test it
15:11 oh, as always the link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/GTK3/Shell
15:11 erikos great work
15:11 manuq dnarvaez found the faulty import that was crashing sugar, thanks dnarvaez!
15:12 erikos yeah, thanks daniel!
15:12 manuq he also ported the speech extension to introspectable gstreamer :)
15:12 erikos yeah ;p
15:12 manuq: we should upstream the patches from the toolkit-gtk3-porting repo
15:12 manuq: so we don't have to deal with two repos
15:13 manuq erikos: sure
15:13 Ariel_Calzada <Ariel_Calzada!~aricalso@181.135.60.103> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:13 erikos manuq: I will have a look at the items
15:13 manuq: and then, the layout in the Views, we should check
15:13 manuq erikos: thanks
15:13 erikos manuq: how about, I start with this?
15:13 manuq erikos: very good, go on
15:14 quidam erikos: ajay seems to be away, but yes, we want that feature for 0.98 :)
15:14 manuq hey quidam
15:14 gonzalo_ quidam, and prxy configuration?
15:14 garycmartin quidam: and the proxy support?
15:14 erikos seen that there are quite some rough edges today and feels we have to invest
15:14 gonzalo_ garycmartin, :)
15:14 quidam and the 3g database
15:14 garycmartin gonzalo_: ;)
15:15 erikos quidam: the important part for those features would be that silbe helps with the review process
15:15 quidam erikos: +1
15:16 erikos quidam: as Manuel and myself are full into touch and shell port
15:16 quidam erikos: he asked in sugar-devel about the review process
15:16 erikos quidam: sure, we discussed that, I just want to make clear the resources
15:17 quidam: can not hurt to repeat from time to time
15:17 quidam: and you guys should plan in time to port it to GTK+3 as well
15:18 quidam erikos: +1 to all
15:18 I'll ask him to pitch in
15:18 erikos quidam: great
15:18 quidam: thanks
15:19 soooo, any more 0.98 feature topics/questions?
15:19 gonzalo_ quidam, proxy support was almost ready 6 months ago, should be nice if you push it this time
15:20 quidam erikos: maybe a dumb question since I lack info (wish silbe and ajay were here)
15:20 but what about the 3g database feature?
15:20 erikos gonzalo_: yes, I replied on the thread with a few questions for Sascha
15:20 cjl What other AC developed dx3 features will be landing in 0.98?
15:21 erikos quidam: can you elaborate?
15:21 gonzalo_ quidam, 3g database was ok from the point of view of design, need code review
15:21 quidam gonzalo_: so we can add it to the features list?
15:21 gonzalo_ quidam, we agreed do internal review before sending patches to sugar mailing list
15:22 cjl I ask primarily about the L10n that will be moving from the dx3-glu94 diff PO into Glucose.
15:22 silbe <silbe!~quassel@HSI-KBW-095-208-116-172.hsi5​.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:22 gonzalo_ quidam, yes
15:23 quidam, you should add it to the list http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/F[…]/Database_Support
15:23 erikos gonzalo_: quidam and please update the owner accordingly, I think both owners are not around anymore ;p
15:24 cjl: we are just trying to figure it out
15:25 quidam so AC features would be 3g database, proxy conf, multiselect and 1-to-n
15:25 gonzalo_ quidam, by the way, i think ajay should owner the multi select feature, i only worked in the initial design
15:25 erikos quidam: 1-to-n?
15:25 quidam transfer to many
15:26 cjl erikos ok, as we'd discussed before, there is very little string churn in Glucose this cycle, so I am pushing activity L10n, if several of the Ui string containing features will be landing, I may also push dx3-glu94 diff PO L10n as a "pre-L10n" step for Sugar 0.98
15:26 quidam but I'm sure I'm missing something here, as it is owned by you
15:26 erikos quidam: that has not been through design review nor through code review
15:26 dirakx erikos, +1 those feature pages are outdated.
15:26 erikos quidam: please keep it reasonable
15:26 quidam: we have a tight, tight schedule
15:27 quidam erikos: sure, I'm discussing on behalf of missing devels today, so I lack details
15:27 erikos quidam: ok, maybe best to follow up by mail
15:27 cjl erikos, it is worth noting that th4ese features have been in th efield for some time, they are not untested.
15:28 dirakx erikos, quidam cjl +1 it's better to follow by email. ;).
15:28 silbe caught up with the backlog (network routing issue prevented connection to IRC servers)
15:29 cjl dirakx: sure
15:29 erikos cjl: gettings things upstream takes time, including the port to GTK+3, so no matter if people used it in the field
15:30 cjl erikos: yes
15:30 erikos anyhow, something AC has to worry about in the first place, and then me schedule wise ;p
15:30 cjl I'm jsut trying to understand best application of L10n resources in the same way :-)
15:31 erikos silbe: so we were saying about the AC features, that you should coordinate, review them in the first place
15:31 silbe: (as I understand from the AC structure)
15:32 cjl: yeah, the decision what is worked on will be announced soon, then it is easier to see which strings changes
15:33 silbe: here now? or do you better want to reply async?
15:34 ok, let's move maybe on...
15:34 silbe erikos: yeah, the new approach to upstream reviews will enable me to spend more time on internal reviews.
15:34 quidam good :)
15:35 erikos silbe: good, and yo know the process and deadlines, so I leave the meat for those features in your hands
15:35 silbe or rather to keep the reviews internal at all - before everything was supposed to go upstream right away, so we could have a discussion early on about what's acceptable and what isn't.
15:36 quidam silbe: #define internal
15:36 pflores has quit IRC
15:36 silbe quidam: not on sugar-devel
15:36 pflores <pflores!~pflores@r186-48-38-160.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:37 erikos manuq: I guess, we two guys will just keep on hacking on the shell port with Daniel
15:37 manuq erikos: great
15:37 erikos manuq: and keep on reporting to the list, so people can join if possible
15:37 mtd: if you look for fun things to do, let me know :))
15:37 quidam silbe: I like that to happen in the open, you can go at your own pace, but allowing others to comment
15:38 tch___ <tch___!~tch@191.132.52.190.res.adsl.dyn.click.com.py> has joined #sugar-meeting
15:39 erikos ok, next item
15:39 quidam: silbe: I guess you can discuss what to do internally first ;p
15:39 #topic: follow up the touch support in the shell: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/F[…]/Touch/Developmen
15:40 http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/F[…]Touch/Development
15:40 this goes at high speed, I have posted patches and design discussions to the ml
15:40 merged a few improvements already
15:40 questions/comments here?
15:41 cjl erikos, How much of this needs to land before touch work in activities can proceed?
15:41 Cerlyn erikos: When should formal testing of touch start?
15:42 erikos cjl: the gesture support needs to land first
15:43 Cerlyn: I will do snapshot builds at those dates http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.98/Roadmap
15:45 #topic - follow up the activities port, touch addition (including gestures), releasing of new activities (gonzalo)
15:45 gonzalo_: please :)
15:46 gonzalo_ erikos, a important topic is gestures, needed in a few activities
15:46 erikos gonzalo_: yes, Carlos will help us there, so this is on it's way
15:46 gonzalo_ we agreed use code from garnacho proposal to gtk project
15:46 erikos yes
15:47 gonzalo_ then, activity developers needing this should wait a little
15:47 there are a list of the proposed gestures in the mail too
15:48 dirakx, did you released new gtk3 activities? garycmartin ?
15:48 anybody else?
15:48 dirakx gonzalo_, not new ones, but in process for this week.
15:48 gonzalo_ dirakx, great!
15:48 garycmartin I've started in Physics, but keep getting distracted with other design tasks.
15:48 cjl erikos If I were to try to reel in an AbiWord dev to work on adding touch to Write/AbiWord do you have a guesstimate of the right timeline for them to start work (given that gestures in Sugar are needed first)?
15:49 gonzalo_ cjl, we are working with carlos garnacho already in this topic, please communicate with us
15:49 cjl ok
15:51 erikos gonzalo_: ok, thanks for keeping it up, any more issues you want to raise?
15:51 gonzalo_: do you need specific help with something?
15:51 gonzalo_ garycmartin, any news about clock (cairo port/hands and so)
15:51 erikos gonzalo_: (ohh btw, I grepped today the actiivties on the latest XO build, and many activities do still use hippo)
15:52 garycmartin gonzalo_: sorry haven't touched it since we last spoke.
15:52 erikos gonzalo_: I guess for the next release we cannot drop the dependency, right?
15:52 gonzalo_ erikos, yes?
15:52 erikos gonzalo_: yep
15:52 gonzalo_ erikos, hmm, will check but we should be almost ready
15:53 dirakx gonzalo_, garycmartin we will need a list of those activities ;), to tackle.
15:54 gonzalo_ dirakx, starting xo with new image to do the grep
15:54 erikos gonzalo_: ok, thanks
15:54 dirakx gonzalo_, yep.
15:54 gonzalo_ erikos, i do not have other activities topics, anybody else?
15:55 erikos gonzalo_: (was probably in the 12.1.0 build == older versions)
15:55 gonzalo_: thanks
15:55 #topic: review process and code acceptance policy (silbe)
15:55 silbe: please :)
15:56 silbe I assume by now everyone had time to read and reflect on my mail, so we decide on the changes?
15:57 erikos silbe: to me, the outcome of this mail is the difference between the in-depth and short-review
15:58 ajay erikos, quidam: gonzalo_: oops.. sorry.. just came in. Could we add on the multi-select status-update discussion please? :P
15:58 silbe as mentioned in the mail, "The two major changes are making in-depth reviews by senior developers
15:58 optional and non-blocking (II.) as well as accepting "no ceiling"
15:58 (VI.) and standards compliance (VII.) patches."
15:58 (sorry for the extra line breaks)
15:59 erikos silbe: those are out of this discussion, imho
15:59 silbe: they can be goals, but nothing we need to decide on
15:59 silbe: if a patch makes sense, we get it in
15:59 but that should be on a patch per patch basis
16:00 silbe I think requiring only short reviews in already practice by now, so the only remaining controversial part is about standards compliance  and "no ceiling" patches
16:00 gonzalo_ yeah, "no ceiling" is a difuse category
16:00 silbe s/in/is/
16:01 manuq has quit IRC
16:01 gonzalo_ "no ceiling" probably will be defined different by walter and you :)
16:01 erikos hehe
16:01 manuq <manuq!~manuq@host233.190-136-200.telecom.net.ar> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:02 gonzalo_ for walter means all sugar should be turtle art, of course :)
16:02 silbe if it helps, the exact wording in my mail was "Accept patches into mainline that are likely to increase the number of contributors using Sugar themselves (A) or to increase their usage of Sugar, even if the patch doesn't directly benefit the XO target user base. It should not have a negative impact on the XO target user base, of course."
16:04 erikos silbe: let's decide when there is a patch
16:04 gonzalo_ silbe, probably apply the same than before, patch by patch
16:04 erikos silbe: I am happy to look at http://patchwork.sugarlabs.org/patch/826/ for example
16:05 but I don't decide on something generic like this
16:05 this can only be a high levelgoal
16:05 silbe The question basically is whether the target audience of Sugar should be restricted to that of the XO (i.e. school children) or whether we want to be inclusive enough to allow people using Sugar to upstream their patches.
16:06 kartik_perisetla <kartik_perisetla!~yaaic@42.109.16.150> has joined #sugar-meeting
16:07 gonzalo_ certainly more dogfood will be good, we have discussed add git to the olpc images in fact
16:07 silbe erikos: PW#826 is not just about "no ceiling", but also about standards compliance. Can we at least agree to accept those patches according to the regular review process?
16:07 gonzalo_: then it should be easy to agree on this change. Remember that large enough changes need to go through the Feature process anyway.
16:08 gonzalo_ silbe, are you talking about  #826 ?
16:09 silbe gonzalo_: my last line was about the accepting "no ceiling" / dog-feeding patches in mainline. Sorry for being unclear.
16:10 erikos silbe: the only thing I can answer you here is: let's decide on a patch per patch basis
16:10 gonzalo_ silbe, i think should follow the same process as any other patch, i don't understand why should be different
16:12 erikos has to fade out
16:12 silbe gonzalo_: that's exactly what I'm asking for. In the past, #826 was explicitly rejected because it didn't affect the XO target user base (yet). All I want is that this isn't (on it's own) a reason to reject a patch.
16:14 So if I post a standards compliance bug fix and it gets reviewed, I want to push it like I push any other bug fix.
16:14 erikos silbe: you mean if it gets accepted
16:14 gonzalo_ silbe, i understand, but then the patch was reviewed .... and rejected
16:15 kartik_perisetla has quit IRC
16:15 cjl Was it rejected purely on the non-targetting to XO users or for other reasons as well?
16:16 erikos anyhow, can we close the discussion here?
16:16 silbe cjl: I haven't been given any other reason. AFAICT there wasn't even a review, we only talked about it during Sugar Camp Paris
16:17 cjl Silbe, then I would request a written review.
16:17 silbe erikos: ok, so do I understand correctly that we disagree on both VI. and VII. (in my mail)?
16:18 quidam silbe: one important think is not to consider staled issues as final, just ping back about it and restart the discussion
16:18 cjl I think you have the right to understand the reason for rejection and to have a civil discussion about it.
16:19 erikos silbe: yeah, I don't agree that we should set this up like this
16:19 silbe: we can discuss patches on a patch per patch basis
16:19 silbe erikos: and there's consensus on requiring only short reviews by senior developers (III. in my mail)?
16:19 erikos silbe: like we do for others
16:19 silbe: senior developers == maintainer?
16:21 silbe erikos: yes
16:21 erikos silbe: a maintainer has to ack a patch, right
16:21 silbe: please use maintainer as wording, senior developer is not something not very well defined
16:22 good
16:22 anything else?
16:22 silbe erikos: we are likely to disagree on the meaning on maintainer, too. But basically my "senior developer" is your "maintainer".
16:23 gonzalo_ senior should  be more than 40 years :)
16:23 erikos silbe: and what differ then? who are the senior developers for the sugar module?
16:24 silbe erikos: only a request to review PW#826 and PW#827 on sugar-devel.
16:25 cjl silbe erikos earlier agreed to review at #826
16:25 silbe erikos: we can discuss that some other time. It's likely to take a few hours to explain what the difference is to me.
16:25 cjl: #827 as well?
16:25 erikos silbe: ok, then I probably don't want to know ;p
16:25 starts countdown
16:25 5
16:25 cjl Let's ask him erikos, will you review #827 also?
16:27 gonzalo_ cjl, are you voluntering to review? :)
16:27 4
16:28 garycmartin 3
16:28 silbe 2
16:28 cjl 1
16:28 erikos #endmeeting
16:28 meeting_ Meeting ended Tue Aug 21 16:28:54 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
16:28 Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-21T14:59:21.html
16:28 Log:     http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]12-08-21T14:59:21

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.
Webmaster