Followup: 2/3 PM EST? Or back such as 12 PM EST?
Also, can we get a list of topics? The few ones I can think of (I detached myself from Trinity stuff the past few months):
Git migration Qt3/TQt3? CMake - what's left Observations/Concerns
On 28 January 2012 15:29, Robert Xu robxu9@gmail.com wrote:
Followup: 2/3 PM EST? Or back such as 12 PM EST?
Also, can we get a list of topics? The few ones I can think of (I detached myself from Trinity stuff the past few months):
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?
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.
The real challenge is which usability bugs are blockers, critical, normal or just a nuisance? How do we collectively decide that?
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. :)
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?
tqt3. Good long-term idea but for R14 I would like to see tqt3 become a secondary issue as long as everybody can build against qt3. Unless there have been certain design decisions already made otherwise, I would like to see qt3 phased out in favor of tqt3 after R14.
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.
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.
Darrell
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
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?
I care. I care about koffice too.
Darrell
Darrell Anderson wrote:
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?
I care. I care about koffice too.
What's the problem with kdebindings? The kmozilla & other xpart infrastructure is part of that too. I've been developing with the 3.5.13 release sources though, so I may have missed the issues because of that.
What's the problem with kdebindings? The kmozilla & other xpart infrastructure is part of that too. I've been developing with the 3.5.13 release sources though, so I may have missed the issues because of that.
Yup, go back a few threads. I can't build tdebindings from GIT with qt3 or tqt3. I can build 3.5.13 too. :) Everything else in GIT builds.
Darrell
2012/1/29 Calvin Morrison mutantturkey@gmail.com:
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.
Fact. I even have a proposal for new layout and undelying engine/structure. But I'm busy too much with exams/PKGBUILDs for arch to continue work. I'll work on the website more after I finished PKGBUILDs. Oh, and layout can bee seen here: http://l0ner.github.com/html/ Please note that it is unfinished, I need to polish it a little.
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
L0ner has noted serious interest in the website.
Fact. I even have a proposal for new layout and undelying engine/structure. But I'm busy too much with exams/PKGBUILDs for arch to continue work. I'll work on the website more after I finished PKGBUILDs. Oh, and layout can bee seen here: http://l0ner.github.com/html/ Please note that it is unfinished, I need to polish it a little.
Please remember this etherpad: :)
http://trinity.etherpad.trinitydesktop.org/24
Darrell
L0ner has noted serious
interest in the website.
Fact. I even have a proposal for new layout and
undelying
engine/structure. But I'm busy too much with
exams/PKGBUILDs
for arch to continue work. I'll work on the website more after
I
finished PKGBUILDs. Oh, and layout can bee seen here: http://l0ner.github.com/html/ Please note that it is unfinished, I need to polish it a
little.
Please remember this etherpad: :)
Also this etherpad:
http://trinity.etherpad.trinitydesktop.org/33
And these audit proposals:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::3645
:)
Darrell
Robert Xu wrote:
Followup: 2/3 PM EST? Or back such as 12 PM EST?
Also, can we get a list of topics? The few ones I can think of (I detached myself from Trinity stuff the past few months):
Git migration Qt3/TQt3? CMake - what's left Observations/Concerns
Also window managers maybe, based on the kwin discussion previously on the list.
-
Calvin Morrison -
Darrell Anderson -
Julius Schwartzenberg -
L0ner sh4dou -
Robert Xu