| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 18:31 |
meeting |
Meeting started Sun Mar 31 18:31:42 2013 UTC. The chair is bernie. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. |
| 18:31 |
|
Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting |
| 18:31 |
bernie |
#topic Trac maintenance (bernie) |
| 18:31 |
|
alsroot: all right. |
| 18:32 |
|
sorry guys for rebooting the old jita. it's that a few years ago we had a power outage at the ML and when i saw it running i thought i had just forgotten to remove it from the autostart |
| 18:32 |
rgs_ |
bernie: cool |
| 18:32 |
bernie |
which suggests that the ML also isn't immune from power outages :-) |
| 18:33 |
|
rgs_: anyway, the trac devel instance should match (more or less) the production one |
| 18:33 |
|
rgs_: if you can upgrade that, then we can do the other one |
| 18:34 |
|
rgs_: maybe send an announcement on #sugar and sugar-devel@ if you plan any downtime |
| 18:35 |
rgs_ |
bernie: k |
| 18:35 |
bernie |
rgs_: i found some upgrade notes here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Service/bugs |
| 18:35 |
rgs_ |
bernie: hey, gotta go do some errands in SF |
| 18:35 |
|
bernie: i'll follow-up on this with you offline later today |
| 18:35 |
bernie |
rgs_: i remember both me and silbe struggling a bit with the weird upgrade procedure |
| 18:36 |
|
rgs_: btw, if you figure out a migration path from trac to something that seems better maintained upstream, feel free to propose it to developers |
| 18:36 |
|
rgs_: but for the time being an upgrade would be awesome |
| 18:36 |
|
rgs_: people have been complaining to me that they get frequent 500 errors from our trac |
| 18:36 |
|
ok, next topic? |
| 18:37 |
|
#topic Pootle maintenance (bernie) |
| 18:37 |
|
it should have been (cjl), i guess |
| 18:37 |
cjl |
Pootle is ancient (2.0.5), some features (suggestion workflow) are not working. |
| 18:37 |
|
I'd love to get an upgrade of Pootle to the soon-to-be-released 2.5, but I keep losing my sysadmin volunteers :-( |
| 18:38 |
|
2.5 should be very stable as it has been running on translate.org and for Mozilla for a while now. There has been a lot invested in Pootle (by Mozilla) since the version we're running |
| 18:38 |
|
We may need a multi-step upgrade path, I'm not sure a direct jump from 2.0.5 to 2.5 is possible. |
| 18:38 |
bernie |
Any takers? |
| 18:39 |
rralcala1 |
I haven't used Pootle before, but I can do it, after testing somewhere else :) |
| 18:40 |
cjl |
rralcala1: That would be great |
| 18:40 |
bernie |
rralcala1: we have a brand new vm for pootle, probably empty right now |
| 18:40 |
|
yeah, newpootle.sugarlabs.oeg |
| 18:40 |
|
org |
| 18:40 |
rralcala1 |
bernie: Great |
| 18:41 |
|
bernie: so I can freely try there right? |
| 18:41 |
cjl |
The RC for Pootle isn't goin gt ochange much before the release |
| 18:41 |
bernie |
rralcala1: the "only" thing to do is installing pootle :-) |
| 18:42 |
|
rralcala1: the pootle service is pretty well documented: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Service/translate |
| 18:42 |
rralcala1 |
bernie: I did my homework :) |
| 18:42 |
bernie |
rralcala1: we could not maintain it decently because nobody on our team is familiar with the intricacies of django |
| 18:42 |
cjl |
http://docs.translatehouse.org[…]sion_control.html |
| 18:43 |
|
http://docs.translatehouse.org[…]/users/index.html |
| 18:44 |
bernie |
rralcala1: if you manage to solve the pootle crisis, you'll get my life-time gratitude |
| 18:44 |
cjl |
me too |
| 18:44 |
rralcala1 |
bernie: My tariffs are in beer currency |
| 18:45 |
bernie |
rralcala1: trust me, you don't want my american beer :-) |
| 18:45 |
cjl |
For Poolte we can do beer L10n |
| 18:46 |
rralcala1 |
bernie: I'm flexible as long is > 3.5% |
| 18:46 |
bernie |
haha |
| 18:46 |
|
i think you need something much stronger to deal with django :-) |
| 18:46 |
rralcala1 |
bernie: cjl: If you agree let me have that upgrade as my first official task |
| 18:47 |
cjl |
agreed |
| 18:47 |
bernie |
anyway, keep in touch with cjl for all the details of pootle and i'll try to be of help if i can |
| 18:47 |
rralcala1 |
bernie: I will |
| 18:47 |
bernie |
rralcala1: +1 |
| 18:49 |
walterbender |
bernie: there are some very good American beers... better than that Moretti swill :) |
| 18:50 |
bernie |
walterbender: hahaha, yes... i can't be proud of our national beers either. |
| 18:50 |
|
and i can find awesome belgian beers here too |
| 18:51 |
walterbender |
bernie: national beer is an oxymoron |
| 18:51 |
bernie |
haha |
| 18:51 |
walterbender |
good beer is always local |
| 18:51 |
bernie |
all beer is local, otherwise it wouldn't be close enough to drink it |
| 18:51 |
walterbender |
bernie: shall we jump into the last topic? |
| 18:52 |
bernie |
template:fozzy_the_bear |
| 18:52 |
|
yup |
| 18:52 |
|
#topic Code hosting on GitHub (walter) |
| 18:52 |
walterbender |
#topic - hosting code on GitHub (walter) |
| 18:52 |
|
dnarvaez has been experimenting with a workflow for github |
| 18:53 |
|
there are a number of potential advantage, not the least of which would be to lessen the infrastructure burden |
| 18:53 |
dnarvaez |
e |
| 18:53 |
walterbender |
that would presume a complete migration, which may be complicated by things like pootle integration |
| 18:53 |
alsroot |
could someone list them |
| 18:54 |
walterbender |
there are some disadvantages too |
| 18:54 |
|
alsroot: I've been experimenting with the workflow and there are some nice features on github, like the ability to make inline comments during a review |
| 18:55 |
dnarvaez |
the main reason we are considering github is that pull request allows 1 to make the review process visible to anyone interested 2 they allow to track reviews in progress |
| 18:55 |
walterbender |
and the possibility of more visibility to potential contributors |
| 18:55 |
|
rralcala1_ <rralcala1_!~rralcala1 41.59.27.191> has joined #sugar-meeting |
| 18:55 |
alsroot |
it exists on gitorious in some kind (didn't compare), the point is that nobody uses them |
| 18:55 |
dnarvaez |
(well the review-related reasons, cjb suggested non review related reasons too) |
| 18:55 |
walterbender |
and someone else maintains the infrastrcuture |
| 18:56 |
|
of course, in 3 days, I have gotten more 404 errors on github than in the past year on g.sl.o |
| 18:56 |
dnarvaez |
alsroot: yes, I have not played with gitorious pull requests yet and perhaps we should. Someone suggested that they are better in github but I can't see anything about that myself |
| 18:56 |
|
s/see/say |
| 18:56 |
alsroot |
it doesn't matter which is the best if it is not being used |
| 18:56 |
cjl |
In gitorious they are "merge requests" aren't they? |
| 18:57 |
|
rralcala1_ is now known as rralcala |
| 18:57 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez: so far, for me, the real benefit has been the inline comments... that is a great productivity tool |
| 18:57 |
dnarvaez |
alsroot: we are going to try and use them |
| 18:57 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez: I use them pretty routinely working with new contributors on my apps |
| 18:57 |
dnarvaez |
alsroot: they won't be used unless the maintainers says they will accept patch that way... |
| 18:57 |
|
walterbender: yep |
| 18:58 |
bernie |
yes, works also on gitorious: https://git.sugarlabs.org/test[…]/merge_requests/1 |
| 18:58 |
alsroot |
walterbender: inline comment, afaik, exists also in gitrorious |
| 18:58 |
walterbender |
alsroot: I'd love a tutorial |
| 18:58 |
dnarvaez |
I honestly don't have a strong point about gitorious vs github |
| 18:58 |
walterbender |
made a merge request on g.sl.o just this morning |
| 18:58 |
|
and it has already been merged :) |
| 18:58 |
dnarvaez |
I feel more stronly about pull requests vs trac/ml |
| 18:59 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez: +1 |
| 18:59 |
|
rralcala1 has quit IRC |
| 18:59 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: is the underlying issue that reviews on the mailing list are being done too slowly or something like that? |
| 18:59 |
dnarvaez |
I think cjb has point about github being the standard these days though |
| 18:59 |
bernie |
windows is also the standard... |
| 18:59 |
dnarvaez |
having your own git hosting service it's becoming a bit like having your own social service :) |
| 19:00 |
|
bernie: reviews on the ml can't be tracked |
| 19:00 |
walterbender |
my question to the infra team is more concerning load |
| 19:00 |
alsroot |
dnarvaez: we already did it, ML, wiki, git, trac |
| 19:00 |
walterbender |
what is the overhead of maintaining g.sl.o? |
| 19:00 |
alsroot |
s/did/do/ |
| 19:00 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: also it's much less pleasant to review in an email form than in a web tool designed for reviweing |
| 19:00 |
|
alsroot: seems pretty different, those are not social services |
| 19:00 |
|
github has a pretty strong social component these days |
| 19:01 |
walterbender |
should that be a factor in our decision about our review process? |
| 19:01 |
dnarvaez |
it acts sort of like a CV even... |
| 19:01 |
alsroot |
anyway, ML vs request review is a bit offtopic for git.sl.o vs. github |
| 19:01 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: so the thinking is that, by making the UI more pleasant, reviews are going to be prioritized over other work? |
| 19:01 |
dnarvaez |
they are two separate issues, yes |
| 19:01 |
walterbender |
I worry that as much as we'd like to maintain all of our own services, the infra team is overburdened |
| 19:02 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: the "pleasant" part is mostly a nice side effect :) the required points are the two I said at the beginning |
| 19:02 |
walterbender |
so is g.sl.o a worthy candidate for decomissioning? |
| 19:02 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: being able to track and being visible to everyone |
| 19:02 |
|
bernie: ml doesn't give you that, nor trac |
| 19:02 |
alsroot |
git.sl.o takes attention mostly during upgrade time (one time in 2y) |
| 19:03 |
dnarvaez |
alsroot: should consider also the bug tracking part though, github offers that |
| 19:03 |
walterbender |
alsroot: OK. so that answers my question... it will have little impact on the infra team |
| 19:03 |
cjl |
and we just had the upgrade recently? |
| 19:03 |
dnarvaez |
alsroot: and trac seems to be a prob for you guys |
| 19:03 |
bernie |
walterbender: i feel that, of all the services we have, gitorious has been pretty maintenable for us |
| 19:03 |
walterbender |
bernie: OK... |
| 19:03 |
|
after the upgrade, it is reasonably responsive |
| 19:03 |
|
it was pretty painful to use before that |
| 19:04 |
bernie |
walterbender: the only feature we lack is a UI for changing project ownership, but github also won't provide it to us. |
| 19:04 |
|
dnarvaez: for patch tracking, silbe was fond of this: http://patchwork.sugarlabs.org[…]oject/sugar/list/ |
| 19:04 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: patchwork doesn't work :P |
| 19:05 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: i never felt that _tracking_ the patch was very useful per se. the lkml has easily scaled to the size of over 1000 developers without patchwork |
| 19:05 |
dnarvaez |
proof is that everyone set it up and then not use it for real, included us |
| 19:05 |
|
bernie: our maintainers feels otherwise |
| 19:05 |
|
bernie: they are using trac because ml doesn't provide tracking |
| 19:05 |
walterbender |
I agree... patchwork was too much overhead for the lowly developer |
| 19:06 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: the problem i had years ago, when trying to upstream work from paraguay, was that patches don't get reviewed very quickly. neither in trac, nor on the mailing list. |
| 19:06 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: I don't think the tool is the main issue there, but it is involbed |
| 19:06 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: this is why i'm skeptical that changing the tool once again would fix the problem by itself |
| 19:06 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: the main issue is that we need more people to do reviews, the current ones are too few and too busy |
| 19:06 |
walterbender |
bernie: but workflow does matter |
| 19:07 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: we are going to get more people with patch approval powers |
| 19:07 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: agreed |
| 19:07 |
walterbender |
and optimizing the efforts of our handful of reviewers would make sense |
| 19:07 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: wait, DISAGREED on the second part: being too busy is not a good excuse imho |
| 19:07 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: but that requires patches to be visible to everyone, so that the most experienced maintainers would still be able to keep an eye on things |
| 19:07 |
alsroot |
lets be concentrated on practical question, ie, "git.sl.o vs. github" (the patch workflow is a real offtopic since should be widely discussed) |
| 19:07 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: it's a matter of priority: reviews should come before other things, in order for the project to work well |
| 19:08 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: people are currently using trac, which doesn't provide visibility. So we need to get off there :) |
| 19:08 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: for patch reviews? |
| 19:08 |
walterbender |
bernie: what is the overhead of maintaining trac? |
| 19:08 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: and our maintainer clearly said they are not using ml because they can't track open bugs |
| 19:08 |
bernie |
walterbender: none, because it's not being maintained :-) |
| 19:08 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: yes, most patches are being reviewed in trac these days |
| 19:09 |
|
bernie: so we need something which gives both visibility and trackability |
| 19:09 |
|
bernie: which is why we started to play with pull requests |
| 19:09 |
walterbender |
maybe we need to revisit the merge request system on g.sl.o (and figure out how to do inline comments on commits) |
| 19:09 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: hmm... i don't believe better tracking will do much without giving more priority to reviews, but if we want to give github a shot, i will help out. |
| 19:09 |
walterbender |
alsroot: can you please look into ^^ |
| 19:10 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: what will do something is to get more people to do reviews |
| 19:10 |
alsroot |
suggests popup (if it makes sense) popup patch workflow question widely and revisit "git.sl.o vs. github) question after that (more especially, there is a FOSS analog of github and we can install SL instance w/ keeping all benefits we have w/ git.sl.o) |
| 19:10 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: that's my main goal |
| 19:10 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: that was my belief too, when i asked to switch from trac to the mailing list |
| 19:11 |
|
(this was over 2 years ago, i'm not very up to date these days) |
| 19:12 |
walterbender |
FWIW, my goal in raising the topic in this meeting was more informational... understanding the impact from the infra POV |
| 19:12 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: yes but we need to use a tool our maintainers are comfortable with, and they aren't with mls |
| 19:12 |
walterbender |
seems like a nop from that perspective |
| 19:13 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: otherwise they just won't use it, which is what happened |
| 19:13 |
walterbender |
so we can bring those data back to the broader devel team discussion |
| 19:13 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: ok, why don't we switch over a couple of core repos, say sugar and sugar-toolkit and see if it helps speed up reviews a bit? |
| 19:13 |
|
dnarvaez: if it seems to work, after a while we can switch everything else too |
| 19:13 |
walterbender |
bernie: that is what dnarvaez has been doing |
| 19:13 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: yup, exactly. That's what I've been trying :) |
| 19:14 |
alsroot |
walterbender: from infra pov, the benefits we have are: (1) close integration w/ the rest of SL infra (accounts, sending translate.sl.o notifies, patchwork, possibly more); (2) we have more freedom to add/remove/modify the content; |
| 19:14 |
walterbender |
alsroot: the t.sl.o one is perhaps the deal breaker |
| 19:14 |
dnarvaez |
somethign I would be interested to know from you guys |
| 19:15 |
|
is the bug tracking situation |
| 19:15 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: ah ok. which repos are currently on github? do we need to link to them from somewhere? |
| 19:15 |
dnarvaez |
just to keep that also into account |
| 19:15 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: if you guys like trac, rgs is going to upgrade it soon |
| 19:15 |
walterbender |
it is a messy situation |
| 19:15 |
bernie |
i think trac is pure crap, but i never switched because developers seemed to like it more than redmine and other options |
| 19:15 |
walterbender |
in part because there are bugs tracked downstream as well |
| 19:16 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: just sugar for now and we have only tried with walterbender patches. Next step I want to check with maintainers if they are fine with trying it out for all patches |
| 19:16 |
|
what are the alternatives to trac? redmine and bugzilla? |
| 19:17 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: ok. if you get the buy in of most developers, i guess the migration can happen incrementally. the benefit of git is that you have a full copy of the history so moving things around doesn't require sysadmin help |
| 19:17 |
walterbender |
rgs_ mentioned http://phabricator.org/ this morning |
| 19:17 |
|
looks pretty interesting |
| 19:17 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: yup exactly, git is really helpful here :) |
| 19:17 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: and, i guess, we can keep gitorious around for the old projects that nobody wants to migrate |
| 19:17 |
|
dnarvaez: we did the very same thing to migrate things from dev.laptop,org |
| 19:18 |
alsroot |
generally, anyone is free to choose code hosting |
| 19:18 |
|
..right now |
| 19:18 |
walterbender |
yes... there are some apps hosted on github already |
| 19:18 |
dnarvaez |
phabricator might be worth explroiing yeah, though it would be more work for our sysadmins |
| 19:18 |
Cerlyn |
GitlabHQ came up in one discussion I was in |
| 19:18 |
|
but I haven't used it |
| 19:18 |
walterbender |
or different work |
| 19:19 |
bernie |
walterbender, rgs_: do you guys want to try setting up one of thse things? gitorious' review UI might simply be plain bad... i don't know because I use it just as a self-service git publishing tool. |
| 19:19 |
|
alsroot: yup |
| 19:19 |
|
Cerlyn: what is it? |
| 19:19 |
Cerlyn |
http://gitlab.org/ - seems to be a full product management solution for git users |
| 19:20 |
walterbender |
Cerlyn: but it doesn't seem to have a tracker |
| 19:20 |
dnarvaez |
I think we shouldd not discount the social aspects of github though :) |
| 19:20 |
|
it's really becoming what everyone uses these days |
| 19:20 |
Cerlyn |
walterbender: What would you call "issues" then |
| 19:21 |
walterbender |
Cerlyn: /me looks again |
| 19:21 |
Cerlyn |
Just because someone pointed it out to me for possible OLPC use doesn't mean SL needs to consider it, but it's a thing out there |
| 19:22 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: that's understandable... otoh it disturbs me a bit to see a project our size depend on an external web service for its core development infrastructure |
| 19:22 |
|
dnarvaez: granted, git is easy to migrate even if github goes down all of a sudden... |
| 19:22 |
walterbender |
Cerlyn: I see the word issues but not description anywhere... /me keeps looking |
| 19:23 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: yeah I mean, there are downsides too certainly... and yeah git makes it less critical |
| 19:23 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: but it would be awkward for projects like gnome and kde to host their code on some other domain, and so for us. |
| 19:23 |
dnarvaez |
even mozilla is hosting a lot of stuff on github these days |
| 19:24 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: oh really? well, then... |
| 19:24 |
dnarvaez |
they still have mozilla-central tbh |
| 19:24 |
|
though firefox os seems to be mostly github |
| 19:24 |
bernie |
and kde almost lost all its git repos due to a disk corruption issue combined with buggy backup scripts |
| 19:24 |
dnarvaez |
so maybe they are moving towards github, I dunno |
| 19:24 |
cjl |
wandering afk |
| 19:24 |
dnarvaez |
perhaps trying it out like us :P |
| 19:25 |
Cerlyn |
github seems to be the new sourceforge |
| 19:25 |
dnarvaez |
Cerlyn: now, that makes me want to run away from it :P |
| 19:25 |
bernie |
anyway, does anyone want to experiment with locally hosted alternatives to gitorious? |
| 19:26 |
|
if nobody volunteers, github will remain the only obvious choice |
| 19:26 |
|
oh, besides trying out gitorious review workflow if anyone cares |
| 19:26 |
dnarvaez |
planning to try out gitorious workflow at some point |
| 19:26 |
bernie |
Cerlyn: indeed. |
| 19:27 |
dnarvaez |
but I first want to focus on pull requests in general |
| 19:27 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: let me know what you think. i never used it myself. |
| 19:27 |
dnarvaez |
if we can prove pull requests work well for us, that's a good step :) |
| 19:27 |
|
bernie: yup |
| 19:27 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: i had not even realized that people had gone back to attaching patches to bugs in trac |
| 19:27 |
|
-1 |
| 19:27 |
dnarvaez |
bernie: heh I havent realized for a while either, I thought developemnt just stalled :P |
| 19:27 |
bernie |
dnarvaez: haha :-) |
| 19:28 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez, alsroot: inline comments do work in gitorious in merge requests :) |
| 19:28 |
bernie |
hey, does it mean i can turn off patchwork.sugarlabs.org? i've always hated it |
| 19:28 |
dnarvaez |
walterbender: that's good, would have been a blocker for me :) |
| 19:28 |
|
bernie: I think so yeah |
| 19:28 |
bernie |
with great pleasure |
| 19:29 |
|
#action bernie kills patchwork with great pleasure |
| 19:29 |
|
ok, shall we call it a day? |
| 19:29 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez: maybe we can experiment with another series of patches using gitorious merge-request? |
| 19:29 |
bernie |
this meeting has been going on and on for a while |
| 19:29 |
|
we should probably have one per month or so |
| 19:30 |
dnarvaez |
walterbender: sure, maybe post the web service one there too? |
| 19:30 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez: I could, or perhaps background image? |
| 19:30 |
bernie |
dogi was telling me that he'd like to do weekly treehouse meetings, but i feel the frequency is a bit too high for my current time budget. |
| 19:30 |
walterbender |
bernie: prob. once per month is enough |
| 19:30 |
bernie |
how do people feel? |
| 19:30 |
tch____ |
bernie: I didn't add much this time, but this meeting would be a good space for community integration also ;) |
| 19:30 |
dnarvaez |
one per month seem good/enough for me too |
| 19:31 |
bernie |
would someone like to send a monthly reminder to systems@ for the monthly meeting? I totally suck at remembering appointments |
| 19:31 |
|
reminder + agenda |
| 19:32 |
|
tch____: yup |
| 19:32 |
walterbender |
sounds like a job for rralcala :) |
| 19:33 |
bernie |
rralcala: yeah come on! |
| 19:33 |
|
i'll actually also put a reminder in my calendar |
| 19:33 |
walterbender |
quick... everyone take one step back |
| 19:34 |
bernie |
but yeah, don't count on me for things that require organizational skills |
| 19:34 |
dnarvaez |
walterbender: sure background image is fine too |
| 19:34 |
alsroot |
bernie: Re: bernie kills patchwork with great pleasure -- are you sure that nobody uses it :) |
| 19:34 |
walterbender |
dnarvaez: OK. I'll get that one started |
| 19:34 |
bernie |
alsroot: the oldest patches are from 10-2012... |
| 19:35 |
|
the *NEWEST* patches |
| 19:35 |
alsroot |
bernie: anyway, better to ping silbe`away in this case |
| 19:35 |
bernie |
alsroot: i'd do it, but i was unable to contact him for months now |
| 19:36 |
tch____ |
bernie: maybe this wakes him up? xD |
| 19:36 |
bernie |
alsroot: i'm actually somewhat worried for him |
| 19:38 |
|
most colorful global notice ever |
| 19:38 |
|
anyway, end meeting? |
| 19:38 |
walterbender |
yes... |
| 19:38 |
bernie |
3.. |
| 19:38 |
|
2... |
| 19:38 |
walterbender |
1 |
| 19:38 |
bernie |
1... |
| 19:38 |
|
0.5... |
| 19:38 |
|
#endmeeting |
| 19:38 |
meeting |
Meeting ended Sun Mar 31 19:38:54 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4) |
| 19:38 |
|
Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-31T18:31:42.html |
| 19:38 |
|
Log: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]13-03-31T18:31:42 |