Unterhaltung mit #deegree

(14:31:50) Das Thema für #deegree ist: Welcome to deegree, an OSGeo project. Visit the main project page at http://deegree.org and our wiki at http://wiki.deegree.org with lots of extra info. Check out a running system at http://demo.deegree.org and follow us on twitter @deegree_org.
(14:32:03) markusschneider: Hi everyone
(14:32:05) copierrj: hi
(14:32:11) jwilden: Hi
(14:32:16) markusschneider: Is Torsten going to join?
(14:32:38) jwilden: No he is not available
(14:32:41) markusschneider: Ok
(14:32:53) markusschneider: Let's start then, shall we?
(14:32:54) markusschneider: http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/TmcMeeting/TmcMeeting20131119
(14:33:06) markusschneider: Anything that you would like to add to the agenda?
(14:33:48) jwilden: Maybe the next communitySpace?!
(14:34:01) markusschneider: you mean the one next year?
(14:34:06) jwilden: Yes
(14:34:22) markusschneider: ok, i will put that on the agenda
(14:34:28) markusschneider: anything else?
(14:34:34) jwilden: No
(14:34:49) markusschneider: fine
(14:35:01) markusschneider: pull requests for deegree 3...
(14:35:06) markusschneider: https://github.com/deegree/deegree3/pull/175
(14:35:30) markusschneider: I am missing the accompanying 3.4 pull...
(14:35:54) markusschneider: am i missing something or is it really not there?
(14:36:09) jwilden: Seems like it is not there
(14:36:33) copierrj: it should be there before this one is accepted imho
(14:36:40) markusschneider: agreed
(14:36:41) markusschneider: so
(14:36:42) markusschneider: -1
(14:36:47) copierrj: -1 for now
(14:36:49) jwilden: 0
(14:36:53) markusschneider: jwilden?
(14:37:02) markusschneider: just to check back:
(14:37:33) markusschneider: would there ever be a case when we could accept a maintenance pull without an accompanying development pull?
(14:38:00) copierrj: only when the fix in not required in dev imho
(14:38:05) markusschneider: i think this road we lead into bug-reapparance hell...
(14:38:09) jwilden: I'd say: no. Usually not.
(14:38:10) markusschneider: anyway
(14:38:11) markusschneider: next
(14:38:19) markusschneider: https://github.com/deegree/deegree3/pull/176
(14:38:20) markusschneider: and
(14:38:21) markusschneider: https://github.com/deegree/deegree3/pull/177
(14:38:47) markusschneider: +1
(14:39:00) copierrj: +1
(14:39:01) jwilden: +1
(14:39:34) markusschneider: merged
(14:39:49) markusschneider: https://github.com/deegree/deegree3/pull/178
(14:40:05) markusschneider: -1 (because of missing 3.4 pull)
(14:40:31) jwilden: -1 because there is more improvement coming
(14:40:44) copierrj: -1
(14:40:51) markusschneider: fine
(14:40:53) markusschneider: https://github.com/deegree/deegree3/pull/180
(14:40:54) markusschneider: -1
(14:40:55) copierrj: (see last comment btw)
(14:41:14) markusschneider: right, thx
(14:41:56) jwilden: What last comment? I only see a single one
(14:42:28) copierrj: last comment of https://github.com/deegree/deegree3/pull/178
(14:42:29) markusschneider: in 178...
(14:43:07) markusschneider: are we done?
(14:43:15) markusschneider: with this pull?
(14:43:18) jwilden: for 180 +1
(14:43:32) copierrj: is 180 not needed for 3.4?
(14:43:36) markusschneider: really? without a 3.4 pull?
(14:43:45) jwilden: oh right
(14:44:21) markusschneider: fine
(14:44:22) copierrj: i think we should add a comment to all these pulls to inform that we require also a pull for 2.4
(14:44:28) copierrj: 3.4
(14:44:34) markusschneider: i tried to. did i miss one?
(14:45:04) copierrj: 180
(14:45:05) jwilden: Is this really something we can require from people helping us making deegree better?
(14:45:28) copierrj: perhaps not for people who didn't contribute before
(14:45:34) markusschneider: well, i believe this is what the tmc agreed upon...
(14:45:49) copierrj: yes, but we shouldn't scare away new contributors
(14:45:56) markusschneider: but correct me, if i am mistaken
(14:46:26) jwilden: No, Markus, you are right. But what just happend does not seem good to me
(14:46:40) markusschneider: i also would like it better if this wouldn't be necessarys
(14:47:03) markusschneider: depending on the state of the branch, it should be possible to rebase stuff into master
(14:47:37) markusschneider: but personally, i cannot spent more time on this
(14:47:40) copierrj: rebase would work for most of these pulls i think
(14:48:07) copierrj: but i don't have time to do this at the moment either
(14:48:30) markusschneider: if somebody would be willing to do the rebases (and the fixes if it doesn't work automatically), i would be happy
(14:48:33) jwilden: Who does
(14:48:34) jwilden: ?
(14:48:46) jwilden: Maybe we can split it up, one request for every TMC member
(14:49:02) copierrj: agreed, but i won't be able to do this today
(14:49:09) markusschneider: i don't believe that this will reduce the amount of work
(14:49:25) markusschneider: if you're really at it, you should be able to do them all at once
(14:49:44) jwilden: Ok then we just leave it the way it is and hope they will do it.
(14:49:47) copierrj: you mean in a single pull?
(14:50:00) markusschneider: i suggest to keep this idea as a future improvement
(14:50:10) jwilden: Agreed
(14:50:24) markusschneider: next item:
(14:50:33) markusschneider: Next community space
(14:50:39) jwilden: Yes
(14:51:15) markusschneider: so, what about it?
(14:51:17) jwilden: I remember a mail from the PSC which asked us if there is anything we would do or any plans we have for the next community space
(14:51:27) markusschneider: one sec
(14:51:32) jwilden: Or if they should just go ahead and plan
(14:51:48) Jeronimo: I think the question should be "Is it more work to do the rebase than to do the fix later". To it seems that the contributor does more work than he causes.
(14:52:42) markusschneider: well, in principle i agree with you, Jeronimo
(14:52:56) markusschneider: if there was an unlimited amount of time
(14:53:33) markusschneider: do you have the possibility to do the rebases (and fixes) maybe?
(14:53:50) markusschneider: i would be glad to have capable help
(14:55:33) markusschneider: btw, here's jens' request: "Please also let us know about any subjects you'd like to discuss - so that we can alreday come up with an announcement (on the list and elsewhere) that sounds promising."
(14:55:53) Jeronimo: Yes, I think I could spare a little time - maybe for all pulls.
(14:56:04) jwilden: Lets finish Jeronimos point first please :)
(14:56:08) markusschneider: right
(14:56:13) markusschneider: that would be great
(14:56:51) Jeronimo: Generally I would like to ask why it is a better situation not to accept a fix.
(14:57:23) Jeronimo: Without accepting the pull there is a bug in stable and dev.
(14:57:31) copierrj: it would result in a situation where a bug reappears in a new release
(14:57:37) markusschneider: well, i believe that loosing control over fixed bugs can be way worse...
(14:57:45) markusschneider: people will not trust the software
(14:58:02) markusschneider: if we miss bugs that have already been fixed
(14:58:08) copierrj: after upgrading to 3.4 people don't expect to see old issues reappearing
(14:58:37) markusschneider: also, it's a maintenance nightmare
(14:58:44) copierrj: which is going to happen if we do not ensure that everything that goes into 3.3 isn't also going into 3.4
(14:58:48) markusschneider: at least, i don't want to be responsible for that
(14:59:03) Jeronimo: So the solution is not to accept bug fixes for stable releases if there is no time?
(14:59:18) jwilden: Then we need someone responsible to migrate the fixes into development
(14:59:21) markusschneider: therefore, i would currently always reject such a pull
(14:59:46) copierrj: me2
(15:00:03) jwilden: Waht if we meet up 15 minutes early every meeting, split up the work of creating the missing pull requests?
(15:00:11) markusschneider: @Jeronimo: yes, sadly this is the consequence
(15:00:28) markusschneider: but keep in mind that this is only the worst case
(15:00:30) Jeronimo: In my opinion you (or we as community) should try to encourage as many people to provide fixes as possible.
(15:00:30) jwilden: (And everyone is invited to join us)
(15:00:49) markusschneider: up until now, everybody managed to provide an accompanying fix
(15:01:18) markusschneider: therefore, i thing this is currently a very theoretical discussion
(15:01:23) markusschneider: think
(15:02:08) markusschneider: @Jeronimo: yes, there's nothing wrong with that
(15:02:15) markusschneider: we should spread enthusiasm
(15:02:33) markusschneider: but we also need to have a process that works
(15:02:51) Jeronimo: Okay. Then here is a possible way:
(15:02:56) DirkStenger [574f5926@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:03:02) jwilden: So waht about the "meeting 15 early and split up the work if there are pulls missing"?
(15:03:29) copierrj: fine with me
(15:03:35) jwilden: This would be an unoffical thing and we can keep our process
(15:03:42) Jeronimo: Say "thank you for your patch - great work. It would be great to do this for 3.4, too. Ask if you need help."
(15:04:30) copierrj: but we should only do this when the pull requester isn't able or willing to do it himself
(15:04:36) jwilden: To summarize:
(15:04:56) jwilden: If the pull is missing for develop:
(15:05:04) jwilden: 1. "thank you for your patch - great work. It would be great to do this for 3.4, too. Ask if you need help."
(15:05:27) jwilden: 2. meet 15 minutes early and make the pulls if there are missing ones
(15:06:39) markusschneider: ok. btw, i guess it would make a lot of sense if the other tmc members would look (and comment) on pull requests when they are made
(15:06:57) markusschneider: but otherwise, this sounds good to me
(15:07:12) markusschneider: but sorry, i cannot help this
(15:07:36) markusschneider: if we're talking about external contributors, i believe we really should be as appreciative as possible
(15:07:46) jwilden: I agree
(15:07:48) copierrj: agreed
(15:08:24) markusschneider: but from lat/lon, Occam Labs or idGIS, I would expect to learn about best practices and follow them
(15:08:37) copierrj: sure, and we shouldn't jump into creating the pull for master ourself too soon
(15:08:51) copierrj: just give them a few days after we comment on the pull
(15:09:07) jwilden: Ok
(15:09:23) markusschneider: we should not create work for each other
(15:09:45) markusschneider: so, the next meeting will be at 14:15 then, i guess
(15:10:06) copierrj: yes, just to check (and fix) the pull requests
(15:10:09) jwilden: Voluntary
(15:10:13) jwilden: yes
(15:10:18) markusschneider: good
(15:10:26) jwilden: back to commuinty space
(15:10:28) jwilden: ?
(15:10:31) markusschneider: everbody satifisied?
(15:10:45) Jeronimo: Yes.
(15:10:47) copierrj: yes
(15:10:57) markusschneider: that's nice :-)
(15:11:18) markusschneider: yes, community space
(15:12:05) jwilden: Is there anything we would like to add to the agenda?
(15:12:12) markusschneider: not from me
(15:12:35) jwilden: I hova nothing either
(15:12:41) jwilden: *have
(15:13:08) jwilden: So we can inform the PSC to just go on and start planning?
(15:13:20) copierrj: fine with me
(15:13:31) copierrj: but we should do some presentation at the community space imho
(15:13:36) copierrj: as TMC
(15:13:53) jwilden: any suggestions?
(15:14:03) copierrj: perhaps about stuff that's currently being developed?
(15:14:16) markusschneider: a status report?
(15:14:18) copierrj: maybe about how to do pull reaquires?
(15:14:21) copierrj: requiests?
(15:14:24) copierrj: requests?
(15:14:36) markusschneider: contribution options?
(15:15:08) jwilden: action item: suggestions for community space presentations?
(15:15:20) jwilden: and discuss them next time?
(15:15:37) markusschneider: +1
(15:15:41) copierrj: +1
(15:15:45) jwilden: +1
(15:16:16) markusschneider: fine
(15:16:22) jwilden: Anything else?
(15:16:35) markusschneider: nope
(15:16:39) copierrj: no
(15:16:58) jwilden: So we are done?
(15:17:03) markusschneider: yes
(15:17:05) jwilden: ;)
(15:17:05) copierrj: think so
(15:17:13) markusschneider: see you in essen!
(15:17:19) jwilden: Next meeting in two weeks or next week?
(15:17:28) markusschneider: why would it be next week?
(15:17:55) copierrj: maybe only a sort meeting to wrap up the pending pull requests?
(15:18:05) jwilden: I agree
(15:18:15) jwilden: and to keep the regular schedule
(15:18:17) jwilden: ;)
(15:18:40) markusschneider: that's fine with me, but I will not be able to make it next week. :-(
(15:18:53) markusschneider: but as i suggested several times, please go ahead without me
(15:18:54) jwilden: Then in two weeks.
(15:19:02) markusschneider: no need
(15:19:06) jwilden: And we can fix the pull reuqests next week
(15:19:30) copierrj: ok, cu
(15:19:35) markusschneider: bye
(15:19:40) jwilden: bye
(15:19:42) copierrj hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Quit: ChatZilla [Firefox 25.0/20131025151332]).
(15:19:47) jwilden hat den Raum verlassen (quit: ).