Meeting 2015 09 12

From PCGen
Jump to: navigation, search

Board Meeting - 2015/09/12

Attendance

Board:

  • ADMIN - Absent
  • ARCH - Tom P. -Tom[Arch_SB]
  • CODE - James -James[Code_SB]
  • CONTENT - Absent
  • PR - Paul G. - [OGL]Nylanfs
  • DATA - Absent
  • OS - Stefan R. - Zaister

Public:

  • Li-Aung "Lewis" - LiaungYip
  • David "Papa" - PapaDRB
  • Andrew W. - ampersandrew

Summary

  • <James[Code_SB]> Agenda is
  • <James[Code_SB]> 1) Welcome to Meeting and posting agenda (Andrew, 1 minute)
  • <James[Code_SB]> 2) Silverbacks report on their Teams (SBs, 25 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> - Admin (Anestis, 5 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> - Arch (Tom, 5 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> - Code (James, 5 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> - Content (Andrew, 5 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> - PR (Paul, 5 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> 3) Next Release, and Estimated Release Schedule for 6.6 (James, 3 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> 4) Formula System / Subsystem Roll-out Discussion (Tom, 25 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> 5) Wrap up and Public Comments (Public, 5 minutes)
  • <James[Code_SB]> Can anyone speak for Admin?
  • <James[Code_SB]> That's sounding like a no
  • <James[Code_SB]> Tom, how about you go then
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> ok
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> Polishing up items on the Formula side to prep that for subsystem conversion (and however it gets integrated).
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> A good set of work on what will be the external libraries, new tests, cleaning those up.
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> We can consider "upping" the standards there for Checkstyle or other things as they run very clean
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I do have one issue that I can't seem to get the code coverage system on the unit tests to ignore coverage of the tests themselves or of the parser code (which has a LOT of unreachable code)
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> There are lots of reports of folks having trouble with that (it seems it's easy to get them ignored for reporting, but that means it reports coverage as zero, not that it removes it from the report)
  • <James[Code_SB]> yeah, I haven't had much luck in customising that in the past
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I'm not sure it's really that important, but just something it would be nice to clean up "someday"
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> As far as the core code, I have a branch NEWTAG-239-531-N in my repo
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I am currently doing a bit of code review on it to catch missing comments, bad var names, et al in the new code
  • *** PapaDRB (~Papa-DRB@p-74-209-24-48.dsl1.rtr.chat.fpma.frpt.net) has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 264 seconds
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> Currently 11,457 additions and 16,123 deletions, so not a small patch :P
  • <James[Code_SB]> Wow
  • <James[Code_SB]> That'll be largely impossible to review
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> Wow is right
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> It's surprisingly not invasive to existing code (very much), so lots of new files (and then the majority of the 16K is files moved to the two libraries)
  • <James[Code_SB]> ah ok
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> So I won't claim it's easy to review....
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> but a sensible scan (once I finish mine) wouldn't hurt
  • <James[Code_SB]> Sounds good
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I think that's it from me
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> Oh wait
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> never mind, will mention the JIRA part later
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok, I'll go next for code
  • <James[Code_SB]> We've had a few bug fixes and other tweaks thanks to Tom and now Andrew
  • <James[Code_SB]> plus the big move to freemarker object model that Tom has been doing
  • <James[Code_SB]> That's about all for now.
  • <James[Code_SB]> Any questions?
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> not from me
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok, Paul, did you want to discuss PR?
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> oKAY, i'VE BEEN INVESTIGATING THE pATREON
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> Per Vic of Paizo as long as the funds from a Patreon account don't pay for anything other than overhead it isn't violating the Community Use Policy
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> So we can use it for webhosting, general promotion etc.
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> Other than that there are two sets that I'm planning on reviewing today and possibly clearing. Not sure if they will be cleared for the release tonight/tomorrow
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> I think that the general concensus was sharing a booth with John Ryst from d20PFSRD was a positive, and we have recieved about 250ish in the last week. so the deposit should be covered shortly
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> I think that's about it from PR, any questions comments?
  • <James[Code_SB]> Good to hear people are willing to support a booth
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok, I'm assuming no one is in a position to talk for data?
  • <James[Code_SB]> So next we have the release schedule
  • <James[Code_SB]> As you would have seen I'll be doing a release tomorrow.
  • <James[Code_SB]> I can hold off until the evening 21:30 AEST if that is better to get things wrapped up such as new sources
  • <James[Code_SB]> Just let me know
  • <James[Code_SB]> I'll aim to do releases every 2-3 weeks after that
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I have nothing else I'm trying to fit in other than the existing PR
  • <James[Code_SB]> Thanks
  • <James[Code_SB]> I don't think there is a date for the 6.6 release yet - Tom did you have any target/.
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> I'm not sure if the data review would be done in time
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> So if it's not done I wouldn't hold the release for them
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I didn't have a target in mind, no
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> The only comment I would have....
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> is that if it really is "soon", then we should cut 6.6 before we do the Formula integration
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> doing them quickly back to back with Formula first doesn't make sense
  • <James[Code_SB]> so perhaps a 6.6. release with the fact system and then formula system for 6.8?
  • <James[Code_SB]> (talking prod releases here)
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> That would drive a 6.6 pretty soon then
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> but yes, I think that might make sense
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok, well we might continue that discussion on the bod list with Andrew then
  • <James[Code_SB]> Next is Formula System / Subsystem Roll-out Discussion - Tom
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> ok, so I talked a bit already about the libraries
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> A few other points
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> First is the JIRA trackers we have
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> There are a lot of those that will be ... mooted, basically
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> So I had sent this out as a discussion point to the BoD prior to the meeting and the existing consensus seems to be to close in bulk
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> So rather than spending the effort to track each item, to just take the ones related to deprecated systems and close in groups
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I will do so as the features necessary to do them are put into the main code (whether main is master or a 6.8 pre-alpha branch - per the earlier discussion)
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> So that will probably close close to 200 trackers
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> The other thing I wanted to discuss was data review, but Andrew isn't here
  • *** ampersandrew (~ampersand@cpc1-glen4-2-0-cust815.2-1.cable.virginm.net) has joined #pcgen
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I would like to have the data related to the formula system PRed in 2 pieces
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> meaning a submission that is not run through PrettyLst
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> so we can do a compare ignoring white space
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> and then one that does PrettyLst if the data team wants to hold that as a requirement
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> That's so I can review the data changes
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I think there are enough mental model changes for folks that I think an external eye on the process is important
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> There are data designs that can be produced that will never be good performance, et al, and we should head those off during conversion rather than having those appear in "new" data
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> But I haven't had a detailed discussion with Andrew on me reviewing data or anything of that nature so no idea what he thinks of it
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I can stick around a bit after if folks have other questions on the formula system
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> anything else for this BoD item?
  • <James[Code_SB]> None from me - apart from supporting the non pretty lst PR
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> Sounds good to me.
  • <ampersandrew> what's PR, in my work that Problkem report. But I'm guessing you meansomething else. Casue that would be a JIRa item
  • <James[Code_SB]> pull request
  • <ampersandrew> right, thatnks
  • <James[Code_SB]> OK, so the last item on the agenda is public comments
  • <James[Code_SB]> Is there anything anyone wants to raise?
  • <Swiftbrook> When you cull the JIRA trackers, if a problem persists, should we create a new JIRA or reopen the closed on?
  • <James[Code_SB]> Either approach should be fine I expect
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> agree
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> I would imagine that commenting on the existing one would be better so there is history.
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> Most of what I will be closing is feature requests of things that can't be done today
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> so those we should leave closed and just ask for a new way of doing something since they are very specific to things like the BONUS system
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> I will make one note on that:
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> A lot of items will be closed up front, but due to how we are doing the subsystem conversion it won't be possible to do them immediately
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> but the theory holds and once we get to that subsystem it will be possible
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> So in things like that, it's probably better to pass them across _exp as "how do I?" questions
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> that will also help folks become familiar with how to do things in the new system, since a lot of folks can use that education
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> that's it from me on that, any other questions?
  • <[OGL]Nylanfs> Does Li-aung want to talk about the website plans?
  • <LiaungYip> well
  • <LiaungYip> 1. move all content from SourceForge website to Wordpress website
  • <LiaungYip> 2. add some sundry features to Wordpress website to a) increase perception of project activity and b) make it easier to download the software
  • <LiaungYip> the current plan is to set up, or ressurect, a 'test' wordpress instance to develop these things on, and get a go/ no go from the board, before implementing on the actual site
  • <LiaungYip> waiting on that to be set up
  • <LiaungYip> not much else to say on that front
  • <James[Code_SB]> It sounds like a good plan to me
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> sounds good
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok, anything else to be raised?
  • <Tom[Arch_SB]> not from me
  • <James[Code_SB]> ok then, meeting closed

END OF BOARD MEETING.