Clone this wiki locally
Marc9: Team meeting in five minutes
Friberg: I wish I had a team :(
ruleant: hi guys
Marc9: Hi Dieter and team
nijel: Hello everybody
chanaka777: Hi team
zixtor_: Hi all!
* Marc9 wishes to play ping-ping with chanaka777
madhuracj: Hi everyone
nijel: I guess we're complete?
ruleant: i don't see rouslan yet
Marc9: Is Isaac still having problems?
Marc9: mynetx is JM
Marc9: We should get started with the ones who are there
madhuracj: Sorry I didn't see him on the list at first
zixtor_: we should go ahead
ruleant: todays agenda is on the wiki :
Marc9: A volunteer to update the wiki team page after the meeting?
nijel: I can do that
Marc9: 1. Conservancy
nijel: Good news here :-). Everything should be settled down and Bradley should send official announcement today or tomorrow.
Marc9: I guess that after the announcement we should add somewhere on the home page, that we are a Software Freedom Conservancy project
nijel: We will then shutdown our PayPal account and migrate all pointers to it to conservancy one.
nijel: Marc9: Yes, Bradley will write this to team list soon.
nijel: Any other questions to this?
Marc9: Look at the botttom of
Marc9: We could use a similar mention
ruleant: @Marc9 : I agree
nijel: It will be pretty much on us what we will use (if you look at other member projects, many of them don't mention conservancy on main page).
Marc9: Let's make the Conservancy happy ;)
ibennetch: Hello, I'm back
Marc9: Hi Isaac
ibennetch: Sorry for the delay; freenode kept rejecting my mobile connection, but I'm here and stable.
ruleant: hi isaac, we were just discussion the current state of our application with conservancy
Marc9: Ready for 2. Server ?
nijel: welcome Isaac
nijel: Yes for me.
ibennetch: I'm willing to serve as a backup on the infrastructure if you wish
Marc9: 2. Server
nijel: I think pretty much everything is written in the wiki agenda, so any opinions on preferred setup?
Marc9: ibennetch, let's wait until item 3
ibennetch: Oh, I jumped up, sorry,
ibennetch: nijel: what's your preference?
nijel: for me it really does not matter much
Marc9: I believe that a machine legally owned by the Conservancy would be better
ibennetch: For me, options 1 and 2 both seem good. No need for nijel to run multiple servers if it's powerful enough to run all services, but I see some benefits of #2 in that it will be dedicated to PMA and that may make conservancy happier
nijel: In all cases the server will have to be reinstalled because current setup is not maintainable in the long term (no longer supported kernel with vserver support).
nijel: any other opinions?
ruleant: how about backup access from other pma team members, will they work in all cases?
Marc9: For example, the Conservancy could buy the half that was payed by Michal for the old server
nijel: ruleant: yes, they will work
ruleant: Marc9, I guess the old server has no value anymore (from an accounting point of view)
ibennetch: Seems that may be best; then Conservancy would own the server and there are no concerns about who owns what. Provided the old server can handle our needs (Selenium, for instance)
nijel: Marc9: I think this would make things just more complicated, I will happily donate that part (though we might have to buy new hard drives, it looks like current one is dying).
nijel: ibennetch: I'm not really sure how much of selenium it could do, but we intend to run selenium tests on browserstack, at least this is current plan.
Marc9: nijel, if you want to donate, thanks! But Conservancy should pay the hosting for this one
ruleant: hosting is something else, there are regular bills from the hosting provider
Marc9: To recap, it runs wiki, demo, a few lists, and ci ?
nijel: currently I pay for hosting something like 45 EUR
nijel: Marc9: see
Marc9: plus DNS
ruleant: per month?
nijel: yes, per month
nijel: DNS is done at Gandi
Marc9: I imagine that translations would move to the new server, with the rest of Weblate ?
ruleant: and it will run the error reporting server
nijel: Marc9: translations can be split or I can continue to host them in similar way I do hosting for other free software, this can be discussed separately
nijel: ruleant: indeed, I'm adding it to wiki
Marc9: I would be happy to see the translation server become faster ;)
Marc9: Do we have a consensus on the server?
ibennetch: So we've eliminated the first option, I believe, as we want it to be owned by Conservancy. So that leaves the old server or a new hosting provider. I'm rather indifferent but tend to prefer keeping the "old" server.
Marc9: Good for me
ruleant: I agree
madhuracj: Sounds good for me as well
nijel: Okay, I will go into this direction, but it will take some time
ruleant: from a practical point of view : the current server has to be reinstalled , so this will mean downtime at some point?
nijel: ruleant: yes, some downtime will be necessary
Marc9: ... plus a hard drive change
Marc9: 3. Infrastructure
ibennetch: This is fine; an outage is needed regardless :)
* Marc9 would like to help on infrastructure
nijel: ibennetch: now it's your turn :-)
ibennetch: Okay, now I can say: if you'd like I'm happy to help out with infrastructure.
ibennetch: Since Marc9 wishes to as well, I'm happy to stand aside and let him do it
ruleant: our major services (website, github and downloads) will stay available, so it's not such a big deal (previous point)
* Marc9 is fine with ibennetch helping on this too
nijel: I think two guys doing backup is fine - you will get root account on the new server
ruleant: i can help out, if necessary as well, I manage linux servers on a daily basis
* Marc9 gives his place to ruleant :)
nijel: okay, so ruleant and ibennetch are the winners :-)
ibennetch: So ruleant and myself, then as backups? Probably ruleant as primary backup and myself as a backup-backup :)
Marc9: 4. Issue trackers
ibennetch: Good since I'm several timezones away from both of you as well
Marc9: Moving items do not happen so frequently so I would prefer keeping two trackers
Marc9: especially since there are so many tickets in both trackers
ibennetch: I have no objection to merging, but don't feel strongly that it's needed. There are a lot of tickets, that is true
chanaka777: I'm also prefer to keep them seperate
Marc9: It's probably clearer for users too (being separate)
ruleant: an upside of merging, is, that will only have to manage the different categories for one list
nijel: for me it really does not matter, though most projects have just one tracker and it works fine for them
madhuracj: I do not have a strong opinion either
Marc9: nijel, are they on SF ?
nijel: IMHO the border between bug and feature is always fuzzy
zixtor_: I prefer merging and call it just issue-tracker (bugs and feature types)
Marc9: not always fuzzy, maybe for 10% of the tickets
chanaka777: Marc9 : agreed
nijel: Marc9: indeed, I meant that the border is fuzzy, not that it is fuzzy decision for all tickets :-)
ruleant: downside of merging : the id's will be changed (again), so we might loose the link with the old ID (before going to the new project system of SF)
Marc9: With merging, we would rely on users choosing the correct tag or label or whatever (bug/feature) ?
ruleant: yes, or we change the tag accordingly
nijel: ruleant: that's true, that mapping would probably not survive...
Marc9: nijel, do you have an example on SF of a merged tracker ?
Marc9: 24 minutes till the end of meeting ...
nijel: Marc9: not really, looking at it right now I see that most of the projects don't use bug tracking at sf.net at all :-)
nijel: but actually good example could be allura (the platform running sf.net):
Marc9: Well, if we don't bother with a possible loss in the references, we can try a merge
nijel: who is for merging?
ruleant: can we do this ourselves, our would we need assistance from the SF support team?
Marc9: I am in favor but not strongly
ruleant: I mean : is there an option in the management interface to merge trackers?
ruleant: I'm in favor of merging as well
Marc9: It's probably a matter of creating the new tracker then moving the tickets
nijel: ruleant: I have not seen it, so we will probably need assistance
nijel: Marc9: I think it's easier to merge to one existing, eg. merge features to bug tracker and rename it...
nijel: that way at least some IDs will stay same
nijel: I also prefer merging a bit
Marc9: zixtor said he was in favor too
Marc9: What would it be called? "Issues" ?
chanaka777: In that case we can give more priority to bug tracker (save IDs)
nijel: yes, I'd call that Issues
Marc9: other opinions?
madhuracj: I like the idea of merging. But I doubt loosing ID's would justify the benifits
Marc9: madhuracj: just losing the features id
madhuracj: Yes, may be that wouldn't be a big issue
Marc9: ok, let's merge; nijel, do you want to work on this?
nijel: Marc9: okay, I'll contact sf.net support about this
Marc9: 5 - Version 4.1 roadmap
Marc9: Releasing 4.1.0-alpha1 in early October, any objection?
nijel: I think we're in good shape for that - this year GSoC changes were not that intrusive
ruleant: what's the current status of merging GSoC 2013 projects?
nijel: the unit testing projects are merged continuously, but they don't matter that much
Marc9: For mine, all is merged
ruleant: the client side for error reporting still has to be merged
Marc9: ruleant: ETA?
ibennetch-mobile: For me merging is ongoing as well, so no problems from Kasun's work
ruleant: there is a pull request with all the changes mohamed made, but I didn't review/test it all yet. I don't know if Rouslan did
nijel: ruleant: he did at least comment it
Marc9: There is ongoing work to improve the navi panel (Atul, Kasun) so this would help being in better shape for 4.1 (and the next 4.0)
Marc9: ruleant, I guess that we can release alpha1 without the error reporting stuff
Marc9: Seven minutes
ruleant: @nijel yes, but those are comments from 3 months ago, on commits from back then
nijel: ruleant: okay, I did not notice they are that old :-)
Marc9: do we have a decision here?
nijel: anyway I think we can release alpha1 regardless error reporting is merged or not
ruleant: but the client was worked on in the beginning of GSoC, so it's been some time since work was done on that part
* Marc9 suggests to skip the mobile-readiness item, as mynetx is away
Marc9: 4 minutes
ruleant: @marc9 : yes, we wait with merging the client, but continue with alpha1
Emn1ty: what is the default username and password for phpmyadmin?
Marc9: 7. Move to stackoverflow
Marc9: Emn1ty, sorry we are in a meeting for a few minutes
Emn1ty: no worries
Marc9: I have found the move to stackoverflow very pleasant
nijel: I think it works quite well also.
zixtor: yeah, stackoverflow support is good
Marc9: Of course, less than 15% are really phpMyAdmin questions
ibennetch-mobile: So far so good for me as well. Seems to be everything we expected (easy to search, good google index, etc)
ruleant: did anyone notice moderators shutting questions down? ;)
nijel: Marc9: Do you think it's worse than on our forums?
nijel: ...time is running out, so this is last topic
Marc9: nijel, yes it's worse but we get better benefits too
Marc9: ok team, I was pleased to meet you
ibennetch-mobile: I try to remove tags where needed but bet you see the questions first
ruleant: I sometimes see general SQL or MySQL questions being tagged with #phpmyadmin
nijel: I'm also sometimes removing the tag :-)
ruleant: bye marc
Marc9: Emn1ty, see
to get support
Marc9: nijel, can we remove the tag ourselves?
ruleant: so to conclude : moving to Stackoverflow for support was a good idea...
nijel: Marc9: you can do that after having enough experience
Marc9: nijel, ok, will try it
ibennetch-mobile: Look for the Edit link under the question
Marc9: Isaac, thanks, this will be useful
* Marc9 is getting back to work, bye
nijel: Okay, I think it's time to say good bye
nijel: thanks everybody for attending
ibennetch-mobile: Okay thanks to all
nijel: we'll meet here in a month again :-)
zixtor: thanks all, bye
ruleant: bye guys, see you next month
madhuracj: Bye everyone
chanaka777: see you