2016 07_Meeting_IRC_Log

仇柯人 edited this page Aug 3, 2016 · 2 revisions
Clone this wiki locally
08:06 < ibennetch> Welcome to the monthly phpMyAdmin developer meeting. This meeting is logged and will be posted to the developer wiki.
08:06 < ibennetch> The first issue is the libraries we use.
08:07 < ibennetch> In the past, we've discussed some donation towards these libraries, but haven't actually followed through with it.
08:07 < ibennetch> I started a list of libraries, but it may be incomplete.
08:07 < ibennetch> (Libraries and services, not including such commercial offerings as GitHub or Travis-CI)
08:08 < ibennetch> Is this of interest to anyone?
08:08 < nijel> The list is indeed incomplete, especially smaller javascript ones are missing.
08:09 < ibennetch> Also, we don't have to donate to EACH of these, the point is to help contribute towards some of the ones we rely on heavily. 
08:09 < nijel> I think it's good idea to support tools and libraries we use, on the other side there are way more than the few you've listed and I'm not sure what key to figure out for amount of donations.
08:10 < DevenB> yes. I am not sure but IMO once the list is complete, and if our financial budget is stable, we can take out some funds and divide among the ones which we think we heavily rely on.  
08:11 < ibennetch> It's a good point that we don't want to be in a position of forgetting one, or have some developer angry that we gave them less than another.
08:12 < ibennetch> So shall we try to improve the list further, then revisit the discussion on the team meailing list after things have settled down a bit?
08:13 < nijel> I think we first need to draw line somewhere, as with tools we're using the list will explode quite a lot. So even if it's my pet project, I don't think Weblate belongs there.
08:15 < ibennetch> Yeah, drawing that line could be difficult and I don't have an idea about what means to use to decide.
08:16 < DevenB> may be we can cut down the list with ranking according to the number of features in phpMyAdmin supported/touched by the library, but then what could go wrong is we might decide not to support some library which is at core of only a single but important feature. 
08:17 < ibennetch> Should we decide on usefulness (jQuery is heavily used, the GIS mapping library isn't as much), size of project (jQuery has many corporate sponsors so maybe needs our support less).
08:18 < ibennetch> I don't want to spend too much time of this meeting dicsussing specifics, as we have some other things to work through. Can we move on for now and come back to brainstorming ideas if we have time at the end?
08:19 < DevenB> that's okay with me. 
08:19 < ibennetch> Moving on for now to PmaAbsoluteUri.
08:19 < nijel> sounds good
08:19 < ibennetch> I was happy to get rid of this. It seemed to cause us problems from time to time, either with misconfigured web servers or with users setting it incorrectly.
08:19 < ibennetch> But nowe it looks like we need to bring it back.
08:20 < nijel> I've commented on the issue meanwhile - it seems to be needed in case of reverse proxy and rewriting URL. What will quite often happen with Docker container....
08:21 < nijel> On the other side, it could be just relative path now and should not be needed in most cases, so I'd really use different name for it to avoid confusion and invalid usage.
08:21 < ibennetch> Is there anything to discuss here, or have you decided that it needs to come back, we are tracking the issue, and someone will reintroduce it when they have time?
08:21 < ibennetch> Okay, that makes sense.
08:23 < ibennetch> Seems this is a problem for any application running in that scenario.
08:23 < ibennetch> Do we know what other applications, such as WordPress or such, do?
08:24 < nijel> There seems to be WP_HOME and WP_SITEURL which looks similar (this was just quick google query right now)
08:25 < ibennetch> Thanks for looking at that. So this seems best. 
08:25 < ibennetch> I don't think we have anything further to discuss about this issue.
08:26 < ibennetch> Let's talk about DebConf. DevenB would you mind sharing briefly?
08:26 < DevenB> Makes sense to me. To bring it back but with a different name (just to avoid any possible confusions)
08:26 < DevenB> Yes.
08:27 < DevenB> I and Madhura attended (well most of it) the DebCon16 at Cape Town. 
08:27 < DevenB> *DebConf16
08:28 < DevenB> The talks and the people were mostly Debian-related with exceptions of a few. 
08:28 < DevenB> But some talks like Security talks related to MariaDB/MySQL were closest to us and we both attended them.  
08:30 < DevenB> Rest, it was fun meeting a lot of open-source developers, Debian contributors (developers, maintainers and users) and to meet Madhura in-person. It really gave a better feel of the FOSS community. 
08:31 < ibennetch> Quite good
08:31 < nijel> That's great that you've enjoyed it ... we really should move on in scheduling next meeting where more of us could attend.
08:31 < DevenB> Also, Karen's talk about the Free Software, Companies and the developers provided some good insights for my time ahead in open-source :)
08:32 < ibennetch> Next year DebConf is in Montreal, Canada.
08:32 < DevenB> we also have an option of FOSDEM, 2017. 
08:32 < ibennetch> And I quite enjoyed attending LinuxTag
08:32 < ibennetch> Indeed.
08:32 < DevenB> yes. We really should :) It would be great if all of us can make it next time. 
08:33 < nijel> I should resurrect discussion on the list....
08:34 < ibennetch> We have quite a few options for the next year or so, although the same problem with my schedule continues where I don't know very far in advance when I can attend such long conferences.
08:34 < ibennetch> But yes, we should look ahead to the next year or two of conferences to try to get the whole team together. It was quite rewarding and productive to have everyone in one place.
08:34 < ibennetch> For now, let's move on to CI.
08:35 < ibennetch> I think the amount they're asking for the private repository is too much.
08:35 < ibennetch> I'm not completely against it, especially if we can't find an alternative, I just think that for how much use it gets that is a lot of money.
08:36 < nijel> That's my opinion as well, though I haven't really looked into alternatives.
08:36 < nijel> Maybe we could extend our Travis to test with multiple PHP versions...
08:37 < ibennetch> Although that amount is basically one Bronze sponsor, so it's not unaffordable, it's just more than we want to pay.
08:38 < ibennetch> I don't know much about configuring Travis and using it in this way. I'm willing to learn but extending our Travis would be a new experience for me.
08:38 < nijel> (eh, I wanted to tell Jenkins, not Travis)
08:39 < DevenB> yes. That is true. We can try looking at some alternatives and their pricing. Also, configuring Jenkins also seems a nice idea if we can do it.  
08:40 < DevenB> But if we are still unsatisfied with other options and their features/pricing, we would still be ready to pay for Travis as we don't think that it is completely unaffordable. 
08:42 < nijel> Okay, I will try to look into other options we have...
08:42 < ibennetch> I don't recall whether there's any big Travis feature we will miss out on by running those tests only on our own private Jenkins installation.
08:42 < ibennetch> Aside from the number of PHP versions they have easily available.
08:44 < nijel> GitHub integration - commit status, pull requests testing
08:44 < ibennetch> Okay, so nijel will look in to alternatives and we'll go from there. But in the short term, I definitely don't mind paying for a few months of Travis so we can stay on top of the security repo. I don't think it's a great long term solution, though.
08:45 < nijel> but that probably can be configured on Jenkins as well, the tricky part is how to do the pull requests testing securely...
08:45 -!- Myth [~Myth@bl22-10-22.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:45 < ibennetch> Those seem like things we can work around, in particular we have very few security pull requests.
08:46 < nijel> That's true, it's not a big issue for private security repository 
08:46 < ibennetch> I imagine in a worst case scenario we can use a different branch and spin up jenkins against that for a quick test.
08:46 < ibennetch> If we're uncertain about breaking, but since the security repository is handled a bit differently it's okay to break the main branches.
08:47 < ibennetch> It's not like the main repository where we try to always have a functional 'master'
08:48 < ibennetch> Okay, so are we finished, then?
08:48 < nijel> Looks like we are
08:49 < ibennetch> If we need to extend Travis for a month or two, I think we can go ahead and do that, just to make sure all tests are continously run, but in the mean time we'll try to work up something better.
08:49 < DevenB> Yes, that sounds good to me. 
08:50 < nijel> I can probably convince them to extend trial a bit if needed for this release
08:50 < ibennetch> Ok
08:50 < ibennetch> Thank you for attending.
08:50 < nijel> Thanks ibennetch for running the meeting
08:51 < DevenB> Thank you everyone. :)
08:51 < DevenB> See you next month
08:51 < nijel> see you