[Chandler-dev] Checkin 7/21/2008

sheila
- Friday: 1:1s with Jared and katie
- Most of this week spent preparing for board meeting on Friday
- Working with Mimi on 1.0 launch stuff - we have aspiration seminar  
tomorrow
- Bunch of admin stuff to take care of, still planning on having 1:1  
with everybody else, probably today/tomorrow
- Wondering if we could change our weekly checkin call to Wed instead  
of Tuesday

katie
- pile of tshirts to mimi for seminar
- talk to mimi/sheila re: launch plans
- goal this week is to be of assistance re: board meeting
- out tomorrow
- available to help testing

Jeffrey
- got a stack trace for wx
- in gdb, saw really-long-start-up, so inspired to debug it
- spent 3 hours trying to get Python to build with symbols, failed,  
frustrating
- fixed relative alarms show up wrong bug, took 20 mins, satisfying
- even MORE satisfying, fixed LATER sectino ordering, since I was  
already in that area of code, took an hour (I wish I'd done it earlier)
- seem like pretty safe things to add for 1.0, but i'll have grant  
take a look
- after that finally focus on that cosmo sorting wrong bug
- maybe write up blog post

* katie - so i'm guessing we should take your fixes, but i'm starting  
to get a little worried about dragging out release
* sheila - yes me too, need to wrap up release
* grant - we do rc today?
* katie - that would be good
- a freeze, no new bugs unless they are crashers/blockers

* grant - do we take the 2 things we tested last week?
* katie - grant, i'd say its your call, if we want to take those  
features and jeffrey's fixes, i'd be fine with that, just think we  
should hold the line and not introduce more
* grant - there have been quite a few complaints about LATER, no?
* mimi - yes, though people eventually grow numb to it ;) it's  
something you notice after you've started really using chandler, but  
not a 30-sec first impression thing

* sheila - there are still 8 bugs assigned to 1.0, only 1 of them is  
P1, do we triage out the others?
* grant - guess so
* we are punting remaining blocker bc we can't reproduce (phantom  
chandler bug)

* jeffrey - hate to muddy the waters, but to be clear, the stuff we  
tested last week had an issue with multi-lines and the regex being  
overzealous, so my fix for that has been tested by me, but it's not  
quite as tested.
* katie - yup, still need to test rc with given changes
* grant - right and same with fix for issue Rick R reported
* sheila - are we planning IRC test session?

* katie - as a small group, I don't think we are going to do a great  
job testing test cases, really users are going to test it
- ideally we'd put some release out for a while and let users do  
their thing and then bless it as 1.0, not unlike what we did for hub
- we can alter protocol a bit and put release candidate out for a  
while, ask users to test it, perhaps after we've done a run through  
ourselves?

* sheila - i think we need to do some basic sanity testing internally
* katie - smoke tests, acceptance tests: http:// 
wiki.osafoundation.org/twiki/bin/view/Projects/AcceptanceTests
* grant - we should probably update for a couple of recent additions  
(separate detail view)
* sheila - smoke tests don't really cover weird issues like pop-to- 
now bugs
* katie - so grant can add some for new features
* katie - we could do a bug verification session as well

* mimi - is it enough to ask users to test rc1? do we need to just  
release it to get wider coverage? like for hub?
* katie - so then the process would be -- test rc, release 0.9, then  
in a week re-release as 1.0?
* jeffrey - kind of like the sound of that
* grant - that's what i thought, though with 0.9-->1.0-rc1

* katie - yea, i think it's a matter of packaging -- mimi just wants  
to be sure we have a phase where we call it 0.9 so more people  
exercise it

* mimi - between 0.9 and 1.0 would be a good time to blog about new  
features so people get excited to try out 0.9

* sheila - how will we deal with bug fixes post 1.0? are we still  
planning monthly release?
* katie - sheila, that's maybe different issue

* katie - mimi does it matter what we call it? 0.9 versus 1.0-rc?
* mimi - i think key is to make sure people upgrade, so just need to  
activate the auto-upgrade thing and blog, etc -- not sure which label  
is better

* going with 1.0 - rc1 then

* sheila - so plan is to roll RC today, do some internal testing,  
then publicize it as 1.0 after some reasonable time, a week?

* mimi - work on rc-1 blog post

* jeffrey, grant, mimi to work on 1.0 new features blog posts
- Hub DV and Sidebar - Jeffrey
- LATER sort issue - Jeffrey
- Recurrence Rules - Grant
- URLs - Grant

mimi
- follow up with user stories
- prep for seminar -- review demo, video camera?
- 1.0 rc-1 blog post
- catch up with users list
- respond to techsoup thread
- catch up with sheila/katie re: 1.0 release and transition

* jeffrey - grant, I have submitted a LATER sort as patch to bug  
11774 - Automatically gather LATER items with no assigned dates into  
separate sub-section

randy
- starting to update: http://chandlerproject.org/Projects/ 
ChandlerServerEndUserManual for 1.0, may need some help as I'm not  
the best end user doc writer, also not sure how much detail we want  
to put into it (screen shots/demos/etc)
- oh and to go with docs i've also been updating the various client  
config ones too

* mimi/sheila - mebbe discuss this on list?
* randy - will send something out

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev