On Jan 28, 2012 5:21 PM, "Darrell Anderson" <humanreadable@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Git migration
> >
> > Qt3/TQt3?
> >
> > CMake - what's left
> >
> > Observations/Concerns
> >
> > Bugs:
> > what is high priority?
> > should we mark certain bugs blocker bugs?
> >
> > Qt3 - do we have any problems with Qt3 right now
> > (performance or otherwise), that we should change? now is
> > the chance with an ABI change.
> >
> > Artwork - seriously, we need to figure this out. Dead
> > serious. no more joking around
> >
> > Website - is this even an issue?
>
> How do we audit the bugzilla? What is a blocker to one person might be a non issue to another. For example, a bug related to compiling a package might affect only certain distros. Nonetheless, I think all compiling/building bugs should be bumped to blocker.

Build bugs should be marked as a blocker. It blocks compilation.
>
> The real challenge is which usability bugs are blockers, critical, normal or just a nuisance? How do we collectively decide that?

I think we mark blockers ones that are fundamentally broken, or something that effects a wide userbase.
>
> There are dozens of paper cut bugs that must be resolved for R14. Almost all of them went untouched with 3.5.13. Those types of bugs affect perception of the project. We still have four months to go before the tentative release date, which is a lot of time to address those kinds of bugs. I don't mind if the release date is postponed to quash a majority of those bugs. There are several people involved here who could resolve those kinds of bugs while Tim addresses the more difficult bugs. I wish that would happen. :)
>

We are making good progress already. A good amount of bugs have been closed since 3.5.13 and many more will be. Many are marked Patch available.

> Perhaps we should have a check box in the bugzilla that identifies a bug as a paper cut candidate.
>

> With respect to the web site, I thought others were working on that. Is that not going to happen?
>

L0ner has noted serious interest in the website.

> tdebindings. Whether tdebindings is overhauled is not as important in the short term as much as everybody is able to build the package. Can anybody build tdebindings? I was able to under 3.5.13 but not since GIT.

I would say the priority is somewhere around that of koffice and khtml. Who cares about kdebindings anyway?

> cmake. Just about everything needs to be converted. tdesdk and tdewebdev were started and they should be candidates for the next wave of conversions. We once discussed that we should focus on two to three conversions per release. Unless somebody has devised a fast way to convert without sacrificing quality we probably should remain with that agreement.
>
> If we had a cmake conversion how-to at the wiki some of us could help convert packages to cmake. Those of us who haven't yet done that could start with smaller packages.
>
> We need a quality assurance check list to ensure cmake conversions do not leave out any component or build option.
>
> Regarding window managers, I prefer that discussion take place post R14. We have enough on our plate now. I think I read somewhere that to be fully XDG compliant that any window manager is allowed to be used, but we should discuss whether that is a project goal.
>

Xdg is a specification. A guideline. Not an API or a hard target. This is low priority. An enhancement bug has been filed.

Calvin