Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

BoD log 4/27/09

Expand Messages
  • Eddy Anthony
    [Chair]Eddy: alright, *bangs gavel* [Chair]Eddy: I ll start [Chair]Eddy: Content report: [Chair]Eddy: All 5.16 trackers left unresolved have been moved to
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 27, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      [Chair]Eddy: alright, *bangs gavel*
      [Chair]Eddy: I'll start
      [Chair]Eddy: Content report:
      [Chair]Eddy: All 5.16 trackers left unresolved have been moved to 5.16.1
      with the exception of the 4e starter set.
      [Chair]Eddy: Now that 5.16 is out the 4e starter set needs to be released.
      [Chair]Eddy: Docs
      [Chair]Eddy: Doc Bugs: 0 (1 total, unchanged since last meeting)
      [Chair]Eddy: Doc FREQs: 23 for 5.16.1 (58 total, -2 since last meeting)
      [Chair]Eddy: Output Sheets
      [Chair]Eddy: OS Bugs: 2 for 5.16.1 (7, +2 since last meeting)
      [Chair]Eddy: OS FREQs: 0 for 5.16.1 (33 total, +1 since last meeting)
      [Chair]Eddy: Data
      [Chair]Eddy: Data Bugs: 1 for 5.16.1 (27 Total, -1 since last meeting)
      [Chair]Eddy: Data FREQs: 5 for 5.16.1 (117 Total, +3 since last meeting)
      [Chair]Eddy: New Source Development: 1 for 5.16.1 (10 Total, -1 since last
      [Chair]Eddy: Data/Code tracker reconciliation. I'm going to try and find
      time this week to open code tracker for all the data trackers which need
      code support but do not currently have a corrasponding code tracker.
      [Chair]Eddy: Once that is complete I'll start looking for FREQs from the
      community and see if we can round out the data wish list for the next few
      [Chair]Eddy: I'll open data/code trackers in pairs for those.
      [Chair]Eddy: Questions for content?
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: none here
      [Arch_SB]thpr: n
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: None here.
      [Admin_SB]Drew: nope
      [Chair]Eddy: K, who want to go next?
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I'll go . . .
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Admin please
      [Admin_SB]Drew: I have a short one
      [Chair]Eddy: Ok Drew
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Drew gets it then.
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Thanks
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Release - nothing to report. We got 5.16.0 out the door. So
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: !!
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Trackers - Eddy and James have been doing great, and sounds
      like Eddy is going to be busy. )If you need assistance let me know)
      [Chair]Eddy: Thanks, will do
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Website - Other than some major spam action, nothing much to
      report here. I've locked down the site, which should kill the spams we've
      been getting.
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Admin General
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Reminder to all SBs, Promotions for deserving members
      [Admin_SB]Drew: That is it for Admin... Wanted to keep it short for a post
      5.16 release. :-)
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Any questions?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: n
      [Chair]Eddy: just a quick comment
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Nope
      [Chair]Eddy: about trackers
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Go for it
      [Chair]Eddy: for data bugs and freqs, when we open these and they require
      code work we'll want to start opening a code tracker along with it
      [Chair]Eddy: that's all
      [Admin_SB]Drew: I've been trying to make sure that happens in cases where
      that is the case
      [Chair]Eddy: Thanks, that's appreciated.
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Okay, no other questions?
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Eric, I think you wanted to go next... :)
      [Chair]Eddy: Eric's up then
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: webhosting (or we can talk about it a little later)
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Thanks!
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: PR is easy tonight as well.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Press releases went out on the 24th. The only site I didn't
      hit was Mortality.Net. I'm having problem signing onto that site so I've
      skipped it for now.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: The press release was a bit more elaborate that usual, but
      it was still fairly simple. I'll be working on aditional writups to be
      released over the next several months, hoping to focus on different aspects
      of 5.16.0 in each piece.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: There has been little t do in the Data Licensing area for
      awhile, but as we move into the new stable we can start looking at new
      sources to add, giving the Data Licensing team something to do . . . :-)
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: On the Pub Liaison front, there has been little to report
      here. Again, we'll make a push now that the new stable release is out. It
      may be time to reach out to all of the publishers again to see if they are
      happy with us.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Thats all I have for tonights report.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Any questions?
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Sounds good.
      [Chair]Eddy: not from me
      [Arch_SB]thpr: n
      [Chair]Eddy: Tom, you're up
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Okay, covering for James for a bit on code, I guess
      [Arch_SB]thpr: 5.16.0 went out as Andrew mentined
      [Arch_SB]thpr: and I know James has fixed a few things since then
      [Arch_SB]thpr: not much more code work than that in the interim
      [Arch_SB]thpr: on Arch
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I've put some code/arch descriptions up on the Wiki
      [Arch_SB]thpr: to cover various concepts, et al
      [Arch_SB]thpr: available off the Architecture page on the Wiki
      [Arch_SB]thpr: still some work to do there, but it's all in one place now
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I have a question for Connor on UI status, not sure whether
      to insert that now or in the agenda
      cpmeister: You can ask if you are allowed to
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Go ahead . . .
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Well, Eddy can stop me if he doesn't like it :)
      [Chair]Eddy: go for it
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I'm not sure I know all the details, but I think you've been
      working on a mockup of what the new UI would look like
      [Arch_SB]thpr: is there a status we have on that?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: i.e. when we might expect to see it?
      cpmeister: I've been out of it for the last two weeks, but I have some time
      now so I can get on that
      irc: [Code_SB]james has joined pcgen
      cpmeister: there was a issue that I was stuck on previously that needs
      [Arch_SB]thpr: ok, what can we do for you?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: or since James just joined, we can give him the action item
      cpmeister: namely, I need to have a strict layout of the Facade API
      [Code_SB]james: :)
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Hi James :)
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Hi James
      [Code_SB]james: Hi everyone
      cpmeister: hey James
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: hi James
      [Arch_SB]thpr: so help me on what you mean by "strict layout"
      cpmeister: I don't know how to go about the particulars of the api since I
      don't know the specifics of what if feasible and appropriate from the
      current architecture
      [Code_SB]james: Now when is the meeting supposed to start? The times on the
      notification look odd
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Well, an hour ago according to the current info...
      [Admin_SB]Drew: But we change it to when you say is best
      [Admin_SB]Drew: So when is best now?
      cpmeister: the api is going to require a bit of discussion, but I can't
      really continue UI development until it is set in stone
      [Code_SB]james: In about 30 minutes :)
      [Chair]Eddy: noon your time?
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: yup
      [Code_SB]james: yep
      [Admin_SB]Drew: 7p PST, 10 EST
      [Code_SB]james: I'll send out a link with timezone translation for that time
      [Chair]Eddy: OK, that 10pm my time and .. right
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Okay, I'll make a note of it
      [Chair]Eddy: everyone OK with that?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I am
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Yep.
      [Chair]Eddy: Cool
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Np here
      [Arch_SB]thpr: easier for me to be later right now anyhow
      [Chair]Eddy: I'm beginning to wonder if we should just use universal time
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I think listing only the relevant times (and leaving off EST
      and AEDT) would be better
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Yeah, seriously
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I even got confused by the posting when I looked at it
      earlier today
      [Code_SB]james: We UTC would be the ideal and eveyrone can work it out from
      [Arch_SB]thpr: just provide a link to a converter :)
      [Arch_SB]thpr: ok, so back to the reports - looks like we need to add a code
      team meeting on the UI API as an action
      [Arch_SB]thpr: and then get on with the reports
      [Arch_SB]thpr: or Facade API, actually
      [Code_SB]james: Yes sounds good
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I'm done with Arch report
      [Arch_SB]thpr: anything you want to add on Code James?
      [Code_SB]james: Only that I have moved the 5.16.0 bug trackers to 5.16.1
      [Code_SB]james: Otherwise I think you have it covered
      [Code_SB]james: Oh and last time I checked we had about 1000 downloads
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: nice
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: 1331 as of the beginning of the meeting . . .
      [Code_SB]james: Even better
      [Chair]Eddy: Anestis, you wanted to talk about webhosting?
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: As the BOD probably knows, we're looking for a new webhost
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: I just wanted those on the Webteam mailing list to take a
      look and comment on the latest provider that I suggested so that we can try
      to finalise our choices
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: I can repost the message to the webteam mailing list if
      that will help refresh people's memory
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: That's really about it
      irc: [Code_SB]james has left pcgen
      irc: [Code_SB]james has joined pcgen
      irc: [Code_SB]james has left pcgen
      irc: [Code_SB]james has joined pcgen
      [Chair]Eddy: Thanks Anestis, any comments
      [Chair]Eddy: ?
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: None from PR
      [Admin_SB]Drew: None here... I've replied and am waiting feed back
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: I've just resent the message
      irc: [Code_SB]james has left pcgen
      irc: [Code_SB]james has joined pcgen
      [Chair]Eddy: Alrighty then, let's look at Kar's agenda:
      [Chair]Eddy: 1.) Virtual champagne (or poison of choice) drinking to
      celebrate 5.16.0 release!
      [Chair]Eddy: I second that, kudos all around :-)
      [Chair]Eddy: 2.) There are trackers still at 5.16.0, these need to be moved
      to 5.16.1 or Unscheduled or 6.0 as required. I'd appreciate if all SBs/2nds
      looked at the trackers relevant to their team.
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Done, I think
      [Chair]Eddy: That look to be done already
      [Chair]Eddy: 3.) 5.18 v 6.0 debate, what do those version numbers mean?
      What should they mean? What shall be the next release number?
      [Chair]Eddy: As a side note, we can legitimately come up with new
      definitions and use those going forward, so don't let what we've done in the
      past constrain us.
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I would add that without defining the scope of the next
      release, Kar's 3rd question can't be answered
      [Arch_SB]thpr: or may not be able to be answered
      [Chair]Eddy: Are we ready for this discussion yet or does it... OK that
      answers that question
      [Chair]Eddy: I would tend to agree
      [Code_SB]james: Is this one we should prep for for the next meeting?
      [Chair]Eddy: and hopefully getting that reconciling done will let us kick
      off that discussion, sorry I've not been able to put time into that yet
      [Chair]Eddy: I think so James
      [Code_SB]james: We will need to decide soon, or perhaps decide that we will
      target one and allow for a change of target once we are closer to beta
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: Personally, I've always been confused b the version
      numbers :-/
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Yeah, can we put that off for the next meeting.
      [Chair]Eddy: I don't see any reason not to discuss the way the numbers are
      derived if we leave out what the target will be
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Well, let me take it back. Perhaps we should hash it out now
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I agree Eddy. It might help get the brain cells moving in
      the right direction . . .
      [Chair]Eddy: but my only concern has been that we've been on version 5.x for
      a long time
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Let's run through a few of the thoughts that have been tossed
      [Arch_SB]thpr: since they've been on a few different lists, it might be good
      to consolidate them to give context to the discussion
      [Arch_SB]thpr: So the first assumption is that we keep the X.Y.Z versioning
      [Chair]Eddy: sounds good
      [Arch_SB]thpr: where X.Y.0 is the first release, and X.Y.1 is incremental
      fixes, when Y is even
      [Arch_SB]thpr: and X.Y.Z are development builds when Y is odd
      [Arch_SB]thpr: same as what we use today
      [Arch_SB]thpr: the question then becomes what triggers a new "X", since Y is
      incremented by 2 with each release
      [Arch_SB]thpr: One suggestion has been that any major data incompatibility
      would trigger a new X
      [Arch_SB]thpr: by that argument, 5.14 probably should have been 6.0 since it
      broke a lot of older, undocumented tags
      [Arch_SB]thpr: in the deprecation cleanup that we did
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Another suggestion is that major usability changes (which may
      or may not be triggered by Connor's UI changes - we'll have to see) would
      trigger a new X
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I'd add, though I haven't seen it mentioned yet, that any
      major OS token incompatibility should probably drive a new X as well, for
      the same reason as data incompatibility
      [Arch_SB]thpr: That might be relevant if we do the templating that has been
      [Code_SB]james: Yes it could be
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: My suggestion would be an X change would be caused by any
      major change in the way a component works, be it data (like 4e support),
      templates and kits, UI changes, or a rewrite/change of a component or module
      [Code_SB]james: I think that might be a bit too frequent
      [Code_SB]james: Almost every prod release includes somethign like that
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: hmmm
      [Arch_SB]thpr: My concern with that definition is that a rewrite that
      doesn't change what the user sees shouldn't deserve an increment of the
      major release #
      [Arch_SB]thpr: the release numbers should be from the user's perspective,
      not code
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: ok, make sense
      [Code_SB]james: My view is that X is a marketing issue really
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I have, of course, dropped out of the summary and into my own
      opinion with those last 2 lines
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Is that how it works in the general software industry?
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Tends too, yes
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: But it seems to me that significant changes in the
      architecture also drive major revision numbers . . .
      [Admin_SB]Drew: afk - dinner
      [Code_SB]james: If you have a public API yes
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I would beg to differ that it's only marketing, but that's a
      story for not on the list
      [Chair]Eddy: I agree with James, it is a marketing issue. Although I also
      agree that a major data incompatibility would be a good reason for a new X
      it is a somewhat negative reason in and of itself
      [Arch_SB]thpr: and yes, James is right that libraries have their own rules
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Ok. Something lke adding non-d20 support would definitly
      warrant an X change?
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: I would say so
      [Arch_SB]thpr: we could always throw the existing rules out the window and
      number Ubuntu style :)
      [Code_SB]james: Yes that would be a big step
      [Code_SB]james: How does that work?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: the release they just did was 2009-04
      [Arch_SB]thpr: done in Apr 09
      [Arch_SB]thpr: or 2009.04 actually
      [Code_SB]james: (big step was in response to Eric's comment btw)
      [Arch_SB]thpr: next will be 2009.10
      [Arch_SB]thpr: in October
      [Code_SB]james: Hmm, I think I prefer our current method
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: CDOM in and of itself won't drive an X change by this
      definition . . .
      cpmeister: we could add a fourth number
      [Arch_SB]thpr: not sure which definition we're working with, Eric
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: A fourth number would be cumbersome
      cpmeister: the vuze team seems to deal with it
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Right. I'm thinking "User Visible Changes"
      [Code_SB]james: Hmm, Vuze seems to just advertise 4.2
      cpmeister: hmm, wiki seems to have info on the subject :
      cpmeister: hmm, but four number versioning is only useful for frequent
      releases...pcgen only releases every 6 months
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Technically we release evry two weeks . . . when were on .
      . .
      [Arch_SB]thpr: the only reason I'd suggest a 4th identifier would be to add
      an SVN release # to our daily builds
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Oh, I like that
      cpmeister: I don't think having X stay the same for a long time is all that
      bad, I mean, how long has Java been at 1.x.x
      [Arch_SB]thpr: 2.x.x. technically
      [Arch_SB]thpr: err 1.2.x.x sorry
      [Chair]Eddy: Yes, that would be a good 4th number
      [Chair]Eddy: otherwise I'm not a fan of the forth number
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I agree Eddy.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Though I wouldn't use it for the more formal releases . . .
      [Code_SB]james: Getting that SVN number ijnto the build version is non
      trivial sadly
      [Chair]Eddy: but I have wondered if there was a way to get the SVN number in
      there somewhere
      [Code_SB]james: Althought it would be nice for autobuilds
      [Code_SB]james: Another option for those might be the dat suffix, like we
      used to have
      [Arch_SB]thpr: so James where does the problem lie?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: in a file for Ant/Maven
      [Arch_SB]thpr: ?
      [Code_SB]james: Well, we would need to update pcgen.properties with the
      verison info. Currenlty that is a mnual process
      [Code_SB]james: I have done auto versioning for most of my work project
      though - that is an ant task and requires a separate version properties file
      that can be managed by ant
      [Arch_SB]thpr: ok, I'll take a glance at that, we're a bit off the agenda to
      dig into that
      [Code_SB]james: That will make it harder to go to maven 2 of course and we
      need to do that some time
      [Code_SB]james: Yep
      [Arch_SB]thpr: So back to version numbering
      [Arch_SB]thpr: seems to be that X.Y.Z is popular
      [Arch_SB]thpr: but changing X has no hard definition
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: To go back to an earlier suggestion, that being a major
      data/OS incompatibility driving an X change, how do we gauge a major
      incompatibility from a minor one?
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: What standard would we use?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: major being it can't be converted
      [Arch_SB]thpr: or if we ripped up a ton of stuff all at once it could be
      raised for discussion if it qualifies as major
      [Arch_SB]thpr: nothing will ever be black/white
      [Arch_SB]thpr: the purpose is to have guidance to help make the decisions
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Right.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Tom, can you expand upon your disagreement on the
      "marketing" issue?
      [Code_SB]james: Going back to the marketing issue, I'd be saying we should
      renumber when someone using the project would say "wowo that's different"
      [Code_SB]james: and a new UI would most likely do that unlike most other
      [Arch_SB]thpr: James: agreed
      cpmeister: that or a significant speed enhancement
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Eric: one other major reason is support
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Support?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: Currently our support model is: we support the current major
      release and fix in either a minor release or the next major release
      [Arch_SB]thpr: some companies support software for N years
      [Arch_SB]thpr: or for M major release
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Right.
      [Arch_SB]thpr: also, there are warranty terms and guarantees
      [Arch_SB]thpr: such that certain changes can't be classified as minor
      [Arch_SB]thpr: for legal reasons
      [Arch_SB]thpr: so while marketing does have some control, it's not a lot
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Right.
      [Arch_SB]thpr: in my experience anyway
      [Arch_SB]thpr: so here is one suggestion for consideration
      [Arch_SB]thpr: per the "major changes for the user" we hold 6.0 as a UI
      [Arch_SB]thpr: well, gah, never mind
      [Arch_SB]thpr: we really don't have a consensus here
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I'm not opposed to your definition . . .
      [Arch_SB]thpr: yea, my point more was also thinking through when we'd hit 7
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: But then I'm part of the Marketing Team . . . :-)
      [Arch_SB]thpr: do we have other agenda items?
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I don't want this to be a black hole if there are other
      [Admin_SB]Drew: I think that was it for agenda
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: 4.) 5.16.1 - Do we plan a release date for this or simply
      release it when we
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: think we've fixed enough issues. Please note we do have a
      not insignificant
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: stack slated for 5.16.1 at the moment.
      [Chair]Eddy: Pretty much, there is the target release date for 5.16.1
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I think we want more release time before we make a decision
      on when we do 5.16.1
      [Chair]Eddy: I agrree
      [Arch_SB]thpr: I think it will be necessary since we have seen some bugs
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I agree as well.
      [Code_SB]james: and what is in it
      [Chair]Eddy: and we've got a list of trackers for it already so we can leave
      that discussion for when those are squashed
      [Code_SB]james: I'll also be culling the list of code tracker dumped in
      5.16.1 - I don't want it to be too big
      [Chair]Eddy: Have we had enough for tonight? :-)
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I have one other issue to bring up.
      [Chair]Eddy: Go
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: The ENnies. I'm processing our application.
      [Code_SB]james: Excellent
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I posted a note on the BoD list with questions. Please look
      at it and give me some help . . .
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I will need a cd image so that I can burn some discs and
      send them off. I'n using the CD art that Eddy has already sent me.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: I'm planning on getting the discs out to the jundges by mid
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: That means I'll need the cd image by the second week of May
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Eddy, you made up the disc for us last year. Can you do the
      same this year?
      [Code_SB]james: ok, that will definitely be 5.16.0 then
      [Chair]Eddy: Sure (did I really?)
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Yep. 5.16.1 will be out of the eligible period.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Yep. You did Eddy! :-)
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Looked real good . . .
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: On the question number 8 (Song/Music) maybe we could ask
      on the main list - maybe one of our users might have a good suggestion
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Eligibility closes on April 30th
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Good idea. I'll post that question on the list later
      tonight if there are no objections.
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Thats all I had.
      [Chair]Eddy: OK, we're going long so shall we call it done?
      [PR_SB]Maredudd: Its done . . . :-)
      [Web_2nd]Anestis: I don't have anything else
      [Admin_SB]Drew: Stick a fork in it
      [Chair]Eddy: Thanks everyone *bangs gavel*
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.