2014 06_Meeting_IRC_Log

Michal Čihař edited this page Apr 14, 2016 · 2 revisions
Clone this wiki locally
12:00 < ibennetch> Greetings everyone,
12:00 < dstorm> good morning / afternoon / evening everyone. I don't know in which time zones you all are. :-)
12:00 < ibennetch> Let us dive right in with the first point about README.
12:01 < Marc9> I was reminded about the README because all emails there received a thank you from a user, however, only a few persons there are still involved.
12:02 < ibennetch> Ah, quite nice. I don't know the legal ramifications of this
12:03 < ibennetch> But it seems we should remove or update the Copyright portion at least.
12:03 < madhuracj> I agree that it should be changed. However Conservancy can help us with the exact wording may be.
12:03 < ibennetch> Probably we should mention it to Bradley before actually commiting a change.
12:03 < nijel> I'd ask Tony from Conservancy for legal advise here...
12:03 < Marc9> We can discuss a proposition here and ask Tony for confirmation:
12:03 < ibennetch> What would we prefer? To completely remove the Copyright?
12:04 < ibennetch> I believe we should maintain some mention of the work of those in the past, however we also have the history page of the home page which does that.
12:04 < Marc9> Not sure that we'll add a copyright notice on each file,
12:05 < Marc9> but meanwhile I suggest we just put "Copyright (c) 1998 onwards -- The phpMyAdmin team"
12:05 < Marc9> The README is not the Credits portion of the doc
12:05 < ibennetch> In README only, right?
12:05 < nijel> Okay for README
12:05 -!- ZweiSteinSoft [5f59d084@gateway/web/freenode/ip.95.89.208.132] has joined #phpmyadmin
12:05 < Marc9> Yes, only in README for the moment
12:05 < ZweiSteinSoft> hi
12:05 < madhuracj> Yeah, sounds good to me as well
12:05 < ibennetch> Yep, this proposal sounds good to me also.
12:05 < Marc9> Hi Ann+J.M.
12:06 < zixtor> Okay for me as well
12:06 < ZweiSteinSoft> Did you get storm, too?
12:06 < Marc9> It would be easier to maintain this way
12:06 < ibennetch> Hello ZweiSteinSoft. We're currently discussing the first point and the proposal was to change the Copyright section to read "Copyright (c) 1998 onwards -- The phpMyAdmin team"
12:07 < Marc9> ... and to ask Conservancy for approval
12:07 < ibennetch> Do we need to keep the Requirements section of README?
12:07 < ibennetch> Thanks Marc9
12:07 < Marc9> ibennetch: good point, I would say no
12:08 < ibennetch> I can work on removing or improving the rest of README, who can contact Tony at Conservancy?
12:08 < Marc9> and we can also remove the part about "How do I compile PHP", this sound like 20th century
12:08 < nijel> hmm, and do we need to keep README at all?
12:08 < ZweiSteinSoft> Conservancy don't belong to the team, but they care about the legal things
12:08 < Marc9> Yes, a README is a known convention
12:08 < nijel> note that we also have README.rst which is shown on GitHub
12:09 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:09 < ibennetch> I've wondered this myself and think it's good to include as Marc9 says it is standard convention and gives a quick "table of contents" where to find support, documentation, license.
12:10 < Marc9> But for example, README.rst does not mention the license
12:10 < ibennetch> It seems to me README.rst is useful only on GitHub but probably not elsewhere.
12:10 < ZweiSteinSoft> Because of the rights, it's a full package of things that has to be there, like imprint on websites
12:11 < madhuracj> I just noticed that. May be license information should go in it as well
12:11 < ibennetch> Perhaps we could merge the information from the two
12:11 < Marc9> at least, the textual information
12:12 < Marc9> Michal is our spokesperson for the Conservancy so let him contact Tony
12:12 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:13 < nijel> Ok, will do that
12:13 < ibennetch> Any objections or further comment about merging the two in to README.rst and removing some information?
12:13 < ibennetch> If not, I'll work on it today or tomorrow.
12:13 < Marc9> What do you mean? remove the README file?
12:13 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:14 < ZweiSteinSoft> merging it....keeping the rights that should be staying there...
12:14 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:14 < ibennetch> Perhaps I'm over-assuming, a moment ago I proposed that we don't need both README and README.rst and said perhaps we could merge the information from the two.
12:14 < Marc9> Because README.rst has a special formatting that makes sense only for github
12:14 < ibennetch> ah, then perhaps it's best to have two different files.
12:15 < ZweiSteinSoft> readme.md==?
12:15 < Marc9> Where do you see readme.md ?
12:15 < ibennetch> I don't think ew need to introduce another format; if we have README.rst for github and README like we have now that should be enough?
12:16 < ZweiSteinSoft> You can merge them both into README.md, then you can read in GitHub and in editor, too. (Markdown)
12:16 < nijel> I don't think Markdown solves any problem
12:17 < Marc9> I would prefer a plaintext README
12:17 < ibennetch> but GitHub uses README.rst -- should we remove this file then?
12:17 < ZweiSteinSoft> GitHub will display a plain README, too, if there's no README.rst
12:17 < nijel> ...but without any formatting.
12:17 -!- mckendricks [~textual@67.52.184.18] has joined #phpmyadmin
12:18 < Marc9> but the .rst calls some images
12:18 < nijel> and things like status images make sense on github, but don't really make sense in downloadable tarball
12:18 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:19 < ibennetch> So it sounds to me like the best solution is to continue with both files.
12:19 < nijel> I agree
12:19 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:19 < Marc9> nijel, the README.rst is not part of the tarball
12:19 < madhuracj> and sync textual content on them?
12:19 < ZweiSteinSoft> both sycron
12:20 < Marc9> Yes, let's keep both; anyway README will be reduced in size
12:20 < ibennetch> I wouldn't sync them; I would leave it pretty much how it is -- README is actual information you would normally find in README (where to find documentation, get help, license, etc)
12:20 < ibennetch> README.rst is the page shown on GitHub that is more of an introduction to phpMyAdmin and which version to download. Something like that. I can submit a pull request with some thoughts and we can discuss it further there.
12:21 < Marc9> agreed
12:21 < ibennetch> Does anyone recall the outcome of the discussion about putting the copyright notice in each file? Perhaps Michal could check with Tony about this as well as I don't think we ever resolved it.
12:22 < ZweiSteinSoft> GPL!
12:22 < nijel> I think it's quite a lot of work which is not really required...
12:22 < Marc9> let's forget about this
12:22 < ibennetch> Ok
12:22 < ibennetch> Moving on then?
12:22 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:23 < Marc9> until Conservancy asks us about this
12:23 < madhuracj> :)
12:23 < ibennetch> Item 2 is support for the 4.0 series and MySQL older than 5.5.
12:24 < nijel> AFAIR Tony said something like that it would be good, but not really necessary, so I think we can move on
12:24 < ibennetch> Sounds great to me, then.
12:24 < Marc9> Madhura, anything to say about item 2?
12:24 < madhuracj> Well, the question is whether MySQL 5.5 has enough adoption for us to forget about the older MySQL versions
12:24 < ibennetch> I would like to support older MySQL longer than July 1.
12:25 < ibennetch> (Which in this case means supporting 4.0 longer, of course)
12:25 < Marc9> ibennetch, you mean supporting security fixes, or more?
12:25 < ZweiSteinSoft> There are still webhosters that only have 5.1.+lower!
12:25 < ibennetch> Yes, security fixes. Not bugs unless there's something major.
12:25 < madhuracj> I think security fixes would be enough
12:26 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:26 < nijel> I agree with longer security support
12:26 < Marc9> Will the situation about old MySQL servers get better on Jan 1, 2015 ?
12:27 < madhuracj> May be we can reevaluate then?
12:27 < ibennetch> Should we select a deadline at this time or just quietly continue to maintain 4.0?
12:27 < nijel> probably not much :-)
12:27 < ZweiSteinSoft> just wait....something is going on at SQL until January
12:27 < ibennetch> I tend to agree with nijel; the hosts I've seen tend to not perform major upgrades unless it's very important.
12:28 < nijel> I'd choose Jan 1 deadline
12:28 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:28 < Marc9> But us sending a strong message, will help motivate ISPs
12:28 < Marc9> like we did for PHP 5
12:28 < ZweiSteinSoft> in Dec.meeting again
12:28 < madhuracj> Then they will use older phpMyAdmin versions too
12:28 < ZweiSteinSoft> they need time to handel...;)
12:29 < ZweiSteinSoft> right!
12:29 < Marc9> If we move EOL for 4.0 to Jan 1, 2015, what about EOL for 4.1 ?
12:29 < Marc9> Madhura, yes, with possible security defects
12:29 < ZweiSteinSoft> ..many branches at the same time
12:30 < ZweiSteinSoft> ?
12:30 < Marc9> We can move end of support for 4.1.x to July 1, 2015
12:31 < ibennetch> 4.1 and 4.2 have similar requirements?
12:31 < Marc9> Note that MySQL 5.5 is almost 4 years old
12:31 < Marc9> Yes, same requirements
12:31 < ZweiSteinSoft> 20 year party of sql +php
12:32 < ZweiSteinSoft> maybe they plan new things??
12:32 < ibennetch> But as near as I can tell, 5.1 is still suppoted by MySQL, so I don't think we should completely abandon it yet.
12:32 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:33 < ZweiSteinSoft> business-customers!
12:33 < ZweiSteinSoft> plesk +co
12:33 < Marc9> ibennetch, on dev.mysql.com they don't mention 5.1 in the left-part download section
12:34 < ibennetch> Since 4.1 and 4.2 have similar requirements, I have no desire to keep long term support for 4.1. People can upgrade from 4.1 to 4.2 when we drop support; the problem with MySQL 5.1 means I think we should support PMA 4.0 longer, but in between versions I'm not attached to.
12:34 < ZweiSteinSoft> archived downloads
12:34 < madhuracj> I tend to agree with ibennetch
12:34 < nijel> I argree with ibennetch as well
12:35 < ZweiSteinSoft> without making the Servers new from 4.1 to4.2..;)
12:35 < ibennetch> You can still download it at https://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.1.html  and some page near there has a table of "Supported Platforms: MySQL Database" -- but I may be incorrectly interpreting this.
12:35 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:35 < ibennetch> https://www.mysql.com/support/supportedplatforms/database.html
12:35 < Marc9> Ok, so Jan 1, 2015 for boeh
12:36 < Marc9> both
12:36 < ZweiSteinSoft> xp is still working--as example
12:37 < ZweiSteinSoft> because they refuse to change good running systems
12:37 < Marc9> Oh, saying we support anything is easy; finding manpower to do it is more difficult
12:37 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:37 < dstorm> can't we end support for 4.1 earlier than 4.0?
12:38 < ibennetch> I hope this would be pretty easy; there hopefully aren't any security flaws in 4.0 :)
12:38 < ZweiSteinSoft> people mail errors + we fix them
12:38 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:38 < ibennetch> I know I'm over-simplifying the problem, but it's not like we will carry on with bug fixes, right? Just security?
12:38 < Marc9> Well, we got a report today and I'm sure that it affects 4.0 as well
12:38 < Marc9> Can't discuss it publicly, of course ;)
12:38 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:38 < ibennetch> And I agree with dstorm that we can stop support for 4.1 before 4.0.
12:39 < ZweiSteinSoft> who aks this? ;)
12:39 < ibennetch> Ah, that's unfortunate. Extra work for the security team to backport those fixes.
12:40 < Marc9> Well, 4.1 is scheduled to end on Jan 1, 2015, so what do you propose?
12:41 < ibennetch> at the moment, nothing, but if we decide to keep 4.0 fixes longer than Jan 1 that we don't also need to maintain 4.1
12:42 < dstorm> ^^ Agree.
12:42 < ibennetch> I don't have a great answer here. I'm also unable to find when MySQL will stop supporting MySQL 5.1
12:43 < ibennetch> (or did)
12:43 < ibennetch> Anyway, to keep this moving, can we decide to support 4.0 and 4.1 at least until Jan. 1, 2015? I think we all seemed to agree about that.
12:43 < Marc9> We based our decision on the fact that there is better information_schema support in 5.5, on which we rely a lot
12:43 < Marc9> agreed
12:44 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:44 < madhuracj> Agreed
12:45 < ibennetch> great.
12:45 < ibennetch> Finally, the "Navigate away" patch.
12:45 < ibennetch> Marc9: do you think it should be reverted?
12:45 < Marc9> I bet I'm not the only one unhappy with the outcome of this patch
12:46 < madhuracj> I find it annoying as well
12:46 < dstorm> ^^ true. IMO, The feature is good but its not implemented well enough
12:46 < Marc9> Yes, that's what I believe; it's a patch only in master.
12:46 < ibennetch> It needs work, I agree. However, I wonder if we should take it and improve it rather than removing it?
12:46 < zixtor> I would also prefer reverting until a better patch.. It's annoying.
12:47 < ibennetch> Which brings up a manpower question; if no one has time to fix it then of course that's a burden on the team
12:47 < nijel> If we can't persuade the original author to fix that timely, let's revert that
12:47 < Marc9> I have  doubt: is this only in master?
12:47 < ZweiSteinSoft> should we try it?
12:48 < dstorm> I have collected few points regarding it.
12:48 < ZweiSteinSoft> we can javascript
12:49 < dstorm> 1) It doesn't work if someone uses mouse and cut/paste content.
12:49 < Marc9> I cleared my doubt: this is a feature request implemented for 4.3.
12:49 < Marc9> Michal, you are assigned to RFE 1518; can you talk to the author?
12:51 < dstorm> I have serious doubt that we can pass selector like it is done here in live() (2nd parameter): https://github.com/phpmyadmin/phpmyadmin/blob/master/js/ajax.js#L192
12:52 < ZweiSteinSoft> dstorm: Feel free to submit a pull request enhancing the feature... :)
12:52 < ibennetch> I think the best place to compile comments and problems is in feature request 1518. I also noticed somewhere this feature is obtrusitve and will comment there.
12:52 < Marc9> ZweiSteinSoft: dstorm already submitted bug report 4415 about this
12:53 -!- tyteen4a03 [~tyteen4a0@unaffiliated/tyteen4a03] has quit [Quit: Black bird fly, you were only waiting for this moment to arise]
12:53 < dstorm> Marc9: there are many more issue with this..I will submit bug ticket for them too soon.
12:53 < ibennetch> Seven minutes remain to finish talking about this
12:54 < zixtor> I think we should revert before 4.3? unless someone attends to the urgency to fix it.
12:54 < ibennetch> How soon are we trying to release 4.3-alpha?
12:54 < Marc9> dstorm, or maybe in the feature request itself, because I feel we'll revert this patch
12:55 < Marc9> ibennetch: only after GSoC 2014
12:55 < dstorm> or maybe, we can revert when releasing 4.3 if someone doesn't improve it.
12:55 < ibennetch> I'm not sure how hard/easy it would be to revert at that time compared to doing it now, but that seems the best solution to me.
12:55 < nijel> I've just commented on the original pull request about the bugs, feel free to comment there as well
12:56 < Marc9> nijel thanks: so we may wait a bit for the author's reactions
12:57 < Marc9> By the way, I found it interesting to have with us in the meeting, a GSoC 2014 student (dstorm)
12:57 < ibennetch> https://github.com/phpmyadmin/phpmyadmin/pull/1145
12:57 < Marc9> (Which means, a possible future team member)
12:57 < madhuracj> :)
12:57 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
12:57 < dstorm> :-)
12:58 < zixtor> :)
12:59 < ibennetch> https://github.com/phpmyadmin/phpmyadmin/pull/1152 rather is where we should probably discuss the "Navigate away" feature.
12:59 < dstorm> btw, I have a fix for bug 4415 (complete fix). I was waiting for the meeting decision
12:59 < dstorm> but not other bugs related to this feature
12:59 < Marc9> dstorm, well, let's wait, maybe we'll revert the complete patch
12:59 < dstorm> *not for
13:00 < ibennetch> Have we reached a decision about this feature, then?
13:00 < nijel> I'd accept patches fixing bugs in this, let's see if we can fix it
13:00 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;) until 4.3 alpha
13:01 < Marc9> nijel, we'll need a complete list of the bugs to make a decision ...
13:01 < nijel> I haven't found other bugs in the bug tracker...
13:02 < Marc9> nijel: dstorm wanted to open tickets for other bugs related to this
13:02 < nijel> let's do it so that we can track them (and not to forget them)
13:02 < ZweiSteinSoft> ;)
13:03 -!- canned [~snark@2620:0:28a0:2007:d47c:a43c:e463:f4ef] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:03  * Marc9 has to go back to wok
13:03 -!- canned [~snark@2620:0:28a0:2007:15:cbff:caac:9656] has joined #phpmyadmin
13:03 < Marc9> bye all !
13:03 < ZweiSteinSoft> good appetite
13:03 < ZweiSteinSoft> bye until soon...
13:03 < zixtor> Thanks all, bye!
13:04 < madhuracj> bye
13:04 < ibennetch> Thank you all for coming. See you back here in a month.