Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Discuss general development subjects that are not specific to a particular version like the versioning control system we use or other infrastructure.
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by imkingdavid »

So it's been about three months since we were supposed to have a meeting. Because the front controller and template events PRs were merged, I removed those items from the agenda, leaving on migrations. Last I spoke with naderman, this was the todo list for that: https://gist.github.com/raw/4252662/f30 ... le1.irclog

I modified the date of the next meeting for the week of 1 January, 2013, though I doubt anyone will wish to meet on New Years. Probably later in that week. Anyway, just wanted to give this a friendly bump, seeing as we haven't met since September. :lol: :roll:
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by EXreaction »

It may be a good idea to try and schedule a meeting before then. Hopefully migrations are finished by that time.

There are a few large PRs that have to be merged yet, a couple waiting on migrations to be completed first. We should discuss how those will be handled since the plan has been to release 3.1 as soon as migrations are finished, but I do not think it's a good idea if we have other fairly big features that could be included in 3.1 if we give those PRs 2-3 weeks after migrations to finish up.
Senky
Extension Customisations
Extension Customisations
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by Senky »

EXreaction wrote:...it's a good idea if we have other fairly big features that could be included in 3.1 if we give those PRs 2-3 weeks after migrations to finish up.
That! I would like to see HTML5 input types for form fields included in 3.1, but I will have to completely rewrite it, because of massive conflict with L_COLON stuff. Give me few days and I will do it.
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by MichaelC »

I'd suggest we leave the meeting until after migrations is merged, then have a meeting about the 3.1 release (when, what needs doing for different parts, how much support for each type [RCs and betas for olympus 3.0.0 were available for customisation submissions, support was given etc]), perhaps also decide how we want to go forward with 3.2. Sort of a general development strategy meeting. Being an important meeting it should attract attention from other parts of phpBB and hopefully be quite productive (more so perhaps than previous meetings which have been very focused and each subject only concerns a few people).
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by imkingdavid »

I agree with a (short) waiting period between the merge of migrations and the release of 3.1-A1 to allow for features to be changed to use migrations. However, I think we should limit it to that; only features that need to be changed to work with migrations should be allowed after migrations is merged. Worst case scenario is that some features may have to wait for 3.2, which will not take anywhere near as long as 3.1 has taken.

@Senky : migrations is not necessarily that close to being merged, so you still should have some time.

EDIT: IF we need an earlier meeting, that can be arranged. We could have one sooner and one following the merge of migrations, as needed. If more people say they would like a meeting relatively soon, we can quickly choose a closer date/time. Otherwise, I'm fine waiting until the first week of 2013.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by Oleg »

imkingdavid wrote: Agenda:
  1. Migrations - We need to discuss if it would be better to wait for someone (naderman?) to finish up the Migrations PR or to instead adapt UMIL for inclusion in the core.
Someone should be ready/willing to adapt UMIL in order for this discussion to make sense.

Assuming such a person exists, there should be an RFC posted for umil adaptation at least outlining what would need to be done and what it would achieve.
Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by Oleg »

EXreaction wrote: There are a few large PRs that have to be merged yet, a couple waiting on migrations to be completed first. We should discuss how those will be handled since the plan has been to release 3.1 as soon as migrations are finished, but I do not think it's a good idea if we have other fairly big features that could be included in 3.1 if we give those PRs 2-3 weeks after migrations to finish up.
I would recommend against making elaborate plans for what should happen "once migrations are merged" until migrations are actually merged.

With that, a 2 week period to get stuff merged seems fine. Now you need to debate if nobody reviewing/merging your patch in the designated window should be a reason to postpone the release.
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by MichaelC »

Oleg wrote:
EXreaction wrote: There are a few large PRs that have to be merged yet, a couple waiting on migrations to be completed first. We should discuss how those will be handled since the plan has been to release 3.1 as soon as migrations are finished, but I do not think it's a good idea if we have other fairly big features that could be included in 3.1 if we give those PRs 2-3 weeks after migrations to finish up.
I would recommend against making elaborate plans for what should happen "once migrations are merged" until migrations are actually merged.

With that, a 2 week period to get stuff merged seems fine. Now you need to debate if nobody reviewing/merging your patch in the designated window should be a reason to postpone the release.
It isn't the end of the world if it is left until 3.2. I'd say no. Say 2 weeks and make that a deadline before branches get split (no delays for feature x or feature y to be finished), that gives plenty of buffer time but not enough time for it to be 'felt'.

Although, I'd like to point out there is a simple solution. Get those PRs merged before Migrations or have them already adapted to migrations ready to push the migrations changes once migrations are merged.

Anyway, back on-topic:
We seem to be agreed on the 2 week buffer period after migrations so we should probably have a meeting the week after migrations?
Last edited by MichaelC on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.
User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: Development IRC Meeting #5 - Planning Topic

Post by EXreaction »

As long as we make sure we are not rejecting PRs for 3.1 because of issues in code that had not changed in the two weeks prior to when we want to release an alpha, I am fine with it.

If possible, all issues from a review should be noted in the PR at least a week before alpha so authors have a week to fix any remaining issues and have it merged. Anything noticed after this that was not changed should be addressed in a later alpha release (meaning it is merged anyways) or the author should get a couple of days to resolve the issue to get it into 3.1 still, depending on how major the problem is.

While 3.2 should be much sooner if we have a fixed release cycle following 3.1, it will not make people happy if they have PRs that are thought to be ready only to have someone not merge them because of minor issues that are brought up in the last few days before an alpha release is made.
Post Reply