Meeting 2014 08 15

From PCGen
Jump to: navigation, search

Formal Meeting for Release and Team Discussions (PCGen 6.03 BETA Cycle)

Board Members Present

  • Arch - Tom Parker
  • Code - James Dempsey
  • Chair - Andrew Maitland


SUMMARY:

  • Team Reports (JIRA Numbers for last 28 days)
  • Release schedule: Beta Monday (Aug 17th/18th), beta next weekend (23rd Aug), RC on 30th Aug, 6.4.0 release 6 Sept.
  • JAVA changed to 1.7 on September 7th
  • GIT/SVN change discussion scheduled for the Sept 12th/13th Meeting.

RAW LOG:

  • [17:04] <@[Chair]Andrew> Greeting everyone, welcome to our Board of Directors meeting for August 15th/16th 2014
  • [17:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> (Bangs Gavel)
  • [17:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> Our Agenda is:
  • [17:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> 1) Team Discussion - Readiness for next release
  • [17:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> 2) Outstanding Blockers for release
  • [17:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> 3) Other high priority discussions
  • [17:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> 4) Open Forum if time remains
  • [17:06] <@[Chair]Andrew> James, let's begin with you. *Passes talking stick*
  • [17:08] <James[Code_SB]> Stats for the last 4 weeks: code features: 6 requested and 5 resolved; Bugs: 17 reported and 17 resolved; New Tags: Issues: 2 requested and 1 resolved
  • [17:08] <James[Code_SB]> Most activity has been in bug fixing and output improvements. I've contributed a fair bit to the OS issues too. There are still a few code bugs which it would be best to fix before a stable release.
  • [17:08] <James[Code_SB]> On the LST Editor front, progress is slow with some UI design issues to be resolved. If we want to include it in 6.4, there might be a reasonable delay.
  • [17:09] <James[Code_SB]> Questions?
  • [17:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> How significant of a delay are we anticipating?
  • [17:10] <James[Code_SB]> Hard to say - it has been hard to get traction on the editor and my time will be scarce very shortly
  • [17:10] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I would recommend against a delay
  • [17:10] <James[Code_SB]> While I'd really prefer not we may be better to progress without it unless there is extra help on that front
  • [17:11] <Tom[Arch_SB]> What type of help are you looking for?
  • [17:11] <@[Chair]Andrew> You want me to contact Connor and see if he can give a hand? Otherwise I'm with Tom on the extended delay.
  • [17:11] <Tom[Arch_SB]> and is it well defined enough that I can pick up some of it, or does it require too much background
  • [17:11] <James[Code_SB]> I think at time time just someone as a sounding board would be most helpful
  • [17:12] <James[Code_SB]> but given our target was to have the release out by the end of August I think we should proceed with that and not squeeze the editor in at the last minute
  • [17:13] <@[Chair]Andrew> Yeah, disappointed to not have an editor, but we shouldn't hold up everything for it.
  • [17:13] <@[Chair]Andrew> Can we focus that remaining time on the OS sheet conversions?
  • [17:15] <James[Code_SB]> I'd be able to do one more conversion i that time - it is around 6+ hours per sheet from experience
  • [17:15] <James[Code_SB]> I'd be happy to sort out the build to merge previews and output also
  • [17:15] <@[Chair]Andrew> However you feel best suited to handle the time
  • [17:16] <@[Chair]Andrew> (That's it for me on questions)
  • [17:16] <@[Chair]Andrew> Tom - you ready to go next?
  • [17:17] <Tom[Arch_SB]> sure
  • [17:17] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Arch is actually easy, since it kind of stops at Beta :)
  • [17:17] <Tom[Arch_SB]> So no real news on that front
  • [17:18] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I guess I do have one more question for James... Do you have a list of the issues you think should be best to fix? I can help look into them, since I'm really in code-mode at the moment as we approach release
  • [17:18] <James[Code_SB]> Sure, I'll send you a list
  • [17:18] <Tom[Arch_SB]> ok, that would be great
  • [17:18] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I don't have anything else... any questions for me
  • [17:19] <@[Chair]Andrew> None here...
  • [17:19] <@[Chair]Andrew> Guess it's my turn
  • [17:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> Admin - I revamped some of the Data Trackers to use the more conventional JIRA system to display "RE-OPENED" as a Resolution. I also cleaned up the workflow so the path was a little easier on the monkey dealing with it.
  • [17:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> Website - no news to report on that front.
  • [17:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> Content
  • [17:21] <@[Chair]Andrew> Eric has been fixing up the docs. I was looking over them and opened a couple of bugs for minor typos
  • [17:22] <@[Chair]Andrew> OS - Tackling minor "bugs" and cleaning up the sheets. Waiting on conversion before tackling certain issues with the sheets.
  • [17:22] <@[Chair]Andrew> Data - according to Jira we have 19 issues resolved in the last 30 days.
  • [17:23] <@[Chair]Andrew> Some unrecorded bugs since not everyone is logging bugs in the system before pushing in fixes.
  • [17:23] <@[Chair]Andrew> (I sent a friendly reminder to the lists about that).
  • [17:23] <@[Chair]Andrew> At this point I'm smacking Bugs as soon as they are raised.
  • [17:24] <@[Chair]Andrew> Questions?
  • [17:24] <James[Code_SB]> Andrew, the stats I am seeing for the last 28 days are data bugs: 50 reported, 59 resolved, data features, 7 requested, 7 resolved, OS issues, 14 reported, 62 resolved
  • [17:25] <James[Code_SB]> So a massive effort
  • [17:25] <@[Chair]Andrew> Huh, wonder why the roadmap is showing different numbers then...
  • [17:26] <James[Code_SB]> That's only for the upcoming release, not what is already released
  • [17:26] <@[Chair]Andrew> Ah, that would explain it...
  • [17:27] <@[Chair]Andrew> I presume no questions - PR Report (Paul G. is at GenCon and should be meeting with PCGen Fans as we speak).
  • [17:27] <James[Code_SB]> Nice
  • [17:27] <@[Chair]Andrew> *Waves at Paul*
  • [17:28] <@[Chair]Andrew> Yeah, I got a nice little reminder asking if I would be making it. ;)
  • [17:28] <@[Chair]Andrew> On to #2 - Blocker Issues?
  • [17:28] <@[Chair]Andrew> James this is your arena.
  • [17:30] <James[Code_SB]> I think the system is generally in good shape. There are a couple of issues from July that it would be good to fix if we can but nothing that holds up the release that I know of
  • [17:31] <James[Code_SB]> I've even given GMGen a run and it is working pretty well
  • [17:31] <@[Chair]Andrew> Nice
  • [17:31] <@[Chair]Andrew> Data is running clean to my knowledge, no blockers on my end. Minor bugs that would be nice for the users - I'm sure - but nothing that prevents release.
  • [17:33] <@[Chair]Andrew> We doing another beta or we feeling good about RC then?
  • [17:33] <James[Code_SB]> We'll do another beta I think
  • [17:34] <James[Code_SB]> Lets say beta next weekend (23rd Aug), RC on 30th Aug, 6.4.0 release 6 Sep
  • [17:35] <James[Code_SB]> Sound ok?
  • [17:35] <@[Chair]Andrew> Sounds fine to me. Why an additional week for the next beta though?
  • [17:35] <James[Code_SB]> or we can do an extra beta on Monday
  • [17:35] <James[Code_SB]> If you want the code and OS changes, they have to be in a beta
  • [17:36] <@[Chair]Andrew> Fair enough. Extra beta on Monday sounds good.
  • [17:36] <James[Code_SB]> ok
  • [17:36] <Tom[Arch_SB]> works for me too
  • [17:37] <@[Chair]Andrew> That moves on to #3 - High Priority Business
  • [17:37] <@[Chair]Andrew> Anyone have anything they want to discuss?
  • [17:39] <@[Chair]Andrew> I have two topics - GIT usage for features/branches (James is likely a better person to speak on this subject) and clarifying the Java will upgrade to 1.7 once we branch 6.4
  • [17:40] <James[Code_SB]> Git is a big change and deserves a full prepared discussion
  • [17:41] <James[Code_SB]> These days I am far more comfortable with Git as I use it regularly at my day job
  • [17:41] <@[Chair]Andrew> So, put it on agenda for a Deep Dive then? Or do we want the remaining meetings just for Release discussions?
  • [17:41] <James[Code_SB]> However such a move is a big step
  • [17:42] <James[Code_SB]> I'd prefer release discussions personally as that should be our focus
  • [17:42] <James[Code_SB]> On Java 7, I would recommend switching the day after the 6.4.0 release
  • [17:42] <@[Chair]Andrew> That's why I asked. Post Sept 6th's release then for GIT discussion.
  • [17:43] <James[Code_SB]> Sounds good
  • [17:43] <@[Chair]Andrew> And the Java changes the day after 6.4.0 is released into the wild...
  • [17:44] *** Nirgali42 has quit IRC: Quit: Lost terminal
  • [17:44] <@[Chair]Andrew> That's pretty much it for me. Segway - do we know why the release dates on SF is incorrect? (I have an open tracker or two about it from users)
  • [17:45] <James[Code_SB]> I haven't had the bandwidth to examine it
  • [17:46] <@[Chair]Andrew> Okay. When I'm not miserable with allergies, and track down my access codes, I'll take a look then.
  • [17:46] <James[Code_SB]> The html is in svn
  • [17:46] <@[Chair]Andrew> True, but the real code is on that evil to access server.
  • [17:47] <James[Code_SB]> Trunk/website/03_get_pcgen.php
  • [17:47] <James[Code_SB]> and those pages are still hosted on the sourceforge site
  • [17:47] <@[Chair]Andrew> Okay, I'll take a look at it then.
  • [17:47] <@[Chair]Andrew> Looks like we'll be ending early today. :)
  • [17:48] <@[Chair]Andrew> Unless you or Tom have anything further, I say we can wrap this meeting up.
  • [17:48] <James[Code_SB]> Nothing from me
  • [17:49] <@[Chair]Andrew> (Bangs Gavel) This meeting is closed.

END MEETING