Status Meetings:2007-04-04:Log

From Camino Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
12:00 <@ss> Alright
12:00 <@ss> Everyone open http://wiki.caminobrowser.org/Status_Meetings:2007-04-04:Agenda in 
            their Camino.
12:01 <@ss> Talking about 1.1... we're almost there. There's only a few bugs remaining and most 
            of them are owned.
12:01 <@ardissone|food> except not rendering
12:01 <@ss> Yeah
12:01 <@Wevah> not rendering?
12:01 <@pinkerton> i've been surfing for 2 weeks on my mbp, with a latest nightly, and haven't 
                   seen it
12:01 <@ss> bug 350331
12:01 <@ardissone|food> i see it every day
12:01 <@ss> I haven't seen it forever.
12:01 <@ss> But there have been reports....
12:01 <@murph> unfortunately, it just happened to me when I opened the wiki agenda
12:01 <@ardissone|food> so it's gotta be behavior related
12:02 <@kreeger> the resize to draw bug?
12:02 <@Wevah> i've seen it, but not in a long time
12:02 <@ss> Does someone want to take that on?
12:02  * ss looks for hands.
12:02 <@ss> ;)
12:02 <@pinkerton> lol
12:02 <@ardissone|food> murph: drag or click?
12:02 <@murph> click
12:03 <@pinkerton> wiki rendered fine for me
12:03 <@ardissone|food> well, there goes my theory it's related to dragging :(
12:03 <@ss> Definitely behavior related
12:03 <@ss> And definitely weird.
12:04 <@pinkerton> i can't say anyone at google has reported it
12:04 -!- smorgan has joined #camino-mtg
12:04 <@murph> emptying the cache lets me reproduce it
12:04 <@ss> I'm not sure if that's stopship, but that's something we need to decide.
12:04 <@kreeger> i haven't noticed it since upgrading to a 3_18 buid
12:04 <@kreeger> er build
12:04 <@pinkerton> my vote is non-blocker
12:04 <@ardissone|food> it hasn't been *as* bad lately
12:04 <@kreeger> and the link in comment 23 renders just fine for me
12:04 <@pinkerton> no children or elderly are killed
12:04 <@kreeger> heh
12:05 <@ss> If someone wants to take it on anyway, it'd be beneficial.
12:05 <@ss> Even if it doesn't block.
12:05 <@ardissone|food> we'll just need to relnote it for sure
12:05 <@murph> yeah, darn it, I'm back on a 3/21 branch build, so that could be it
12:05 <@pinkerton> 3/28 here
12:05 <@ss> We can relnote it. No problem.
12:05 <@pinkerton> was using 1.1b1 before that
12:05 <@kreeger> ill try and look at it if i can find a consistent test case
12:06 <@ss> We can probably push bug 363010
12:06 < thebot> ss: Bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363010 nor, --, Camino1.1,
                nobody@mozilla.org, NEW, Include localized/multilingual EULAs in the .dmg license 
                agreement
12:06 <@ss> Even 'til 2.0.
12:06 <@ss> Any complaints?
12:06 <@ardissone|food> we promised marcello, but...
12:07 <@ardissone|food> i'm not (likely) the one doing that work ;)
12:07 <@ss> So, with those two pushed, there's five bugs left. One unowned.
12:07 <@smorgan> Does that need anything but localized EULAs?
12:07 <@ss> (367055)
12:07 <@smorgan> I figured that's why it was sitting
12:07 <@ss> I'm not sure.
12:07 <@ardissone|food> good math skills :p
12:07 <@ardissone|food> they go into a .r
12:08 <@ardissone|food> wherein stuff is delimited by number of chars in it is
12:08 -!- peeja has joined #camino-mtg
12:09 <@ardissone|food> mento knows all the gory details; i only know some
12:09 -!- delliott has joined #camino-mtg
12:09 <@ss> mento: Care to speak on it?
12:09 <@mento> the resource compiler gets mad if you give it lines longer than some arbitrary 
               number of characters.  255, i think
12:09 <@mento> is that what you're talking about?
12:09 <@ardissone|food> breaking the sections for style
12:09 <@mento> oh
12:09 <@mento> you need to be good at counting
12:09 <@mento> but not SO good
12:09 <@ardissone|food> and for languages?
12:10 <@mento> since you can always test your handiwork and see if it looks good
12:10 <@ardissone|food> that looked like it was counting, too
12:10 <@mento> you need to increment numbers to add languages
12:10 <@mento> that's a very easy subset of counting :)
12:10 <@mento> i can help out with that.
12:10 <@froodian> actually, as I see it, that's pretty much *exactly* counting ;)
12:11 <@ss> So, we'll take it?
12:11 <@ardissone|food> note they're not very good at counting over in fx land
12:11 <@ardissone|food> ;)
12:11 <@mento> counting by 1s is easier than counting by 34s :)
12:11  * ss hears a bunch of "yay"s.
12:11 <@ss> So let's take it if someone wants to own it.
12:11 <@mento> if you wanna take it, it should be easy
12:12 <@mento> plus it, i'll squeeze it in somehwere.
12:12 <@ss> Sounds good.
12:12 <@ss> Let's talk about versioning now...
12:12 <@ss> 1.1 is huge.
12:12 <@ss> So huge that it's really not a ".1" increment.
12:12 <@ss> Are there any objections to jumping ahead to 1.5?
12:12 <@smorgan> Yes
12:13 <@ss> What objects do you have?
12:13 <@smorgan> Because we already released 1.1a, 1.1a2, 1.1b, and have been talking about the 
                 "upcoming 1.1" for quite a while in a variety of public places
12:13 <@ss> objections*
12:13 <@pinkerton> most people don't read what we say ;)
12:13 <@smorgan> Why the hell confuse everyone for no good reason?
12:13 <@ss> I don't see it as too much confusion.
12:14 <@ss> And with a properly written series of blog posts and PR, I think we'll be fine.
12:14 <@smorgan> We had this conversation before and picked 1.1, I don't see why we need to have 
                 it again now that it's weirder to change
12:14 <@smorgan> And I think it makes us look like marketing weasels to change it now
12:14 <@pinkerton> and makes 1.6 a bit more confusing
12:14 <@pinkerton> s/1.6/1.2
12:14 <@ss> Man, I don't se that at all.
12:15 <@ss> I think it just reflects the major changes we made.
12:15 <@Wevah> i agree with smorgan
12:15 <@ss> Which no one really anticipated for a .1 release.
12:15 <@smorgan> I think the product reflects the major changes we made
12:15 <@ardissone|food> we did 09a, etc then 1.0
12:15 <@murph> I'll agree that we have enough new features and enhancements to warrant the 
               increase to 1.5, but the decision on whether we're too late is up to you guys
12:15 <@smorgan> I think we picked 1.1 and we shouldn't change it now
12:15 <@peeja> I don't know that the change would be so bad, but I'm not sure it would look much 
               better, either
12:15 <@delliott> I agree with smorgan's reasons.
12:15 <@froodian> although 1.1 has been publicized/bloggeed about, it's most frequently been done 
                  so (by df, for example) with a "this should really be called 1.5" note
12:16 <@ardissone|food> and by Om
12:16 <@froodian> fwiw
12:16 <@ss> I'd also say that, most "real press" haven't really referred to us at all.
12:16 <@ss> As far as 1.1 is concerned anyway.
12:16 <@peeja> makes us look modest. :)
12:17 <@pinkerton> lol
12:17 <@delliott> ss: What would we gain from changing 1.1 to 1.5?
12:17 <@ardissone|food> 1.1 was originally supposed to be a small, quick followup to 1.0
12:17 <@ardissone|food> this is not that 1.1
12:17 <@ss> delliott: Truth in versioning.
12:17 <@ardissone|food> in any sense
12:17 <@smorgan> Please
12:18 <@smorgan> Like there's a fixed standard for each numeric value
12:18 <@ss> So, 1.2 is supposed to be another "quick follow up". If it is, it'll have a quarter 
            or a tenth of the features that the 1.0->1.1 leap did.
12:18 <@pinkerton> well, the size of the difference connotes more change
12:19 <@smorgan> 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0?  That's a really wacky progression
12:19 <@peeja> if we had a clear roadmap to 2.0, it might be more important
12:19 <@ss> It seems like, by calling this 1.1, we're conditioning people to expect more from us.
12:19 <@ss> (In each point release)
12:19 <@smorgan> And hey, if we switch Gecko, that's big. So now 1.6->2.0 is too small
12:19 <@pinkerton> i wouldn't say that
12:19 <@smorgan> So is the next 2.5?
12:19 <@pinkerton> (to ss)
12:19 <@smorgan> Or just 2.3?
12:20 <@ss> I can't even think about anything past 2.0.
12:20 <@pinkerton> i just envision lots of "1.1 is a huge upgrade from 1.0" blog posts, where 
                   that sorta looks odd
12:20 <@ss> If you can, more power to you.
12:20 <@pinkerton> "really? huge upgrade? so why is it only .1?"
12:20 <@smorgan> We know we will have a 2.0
12:20 <@ss> I do too.
12:20 <@smorgan> We know it will use 1.9
12:20 <@smorgan> We know that 1.9 is a huge internal change
12:20 <@smorgan> So I don't see why what we did is 0.5 worth, but Gecko 1.9 is less than 0.5 worth
12:21 <@pinkerton> we've added tons of features, have you used 1.0x lately?
12:21 <@ardissone|food> god, it sucks :p
12:21 <@pinkerton> seriously, it's like "we thought this was cool?" :D
12:21 <@ss> So, think of it this way... the 1.x series was Gecko 1.8, the 2.x series is Gecko 1.9.
12:22 <@ss> Yeah, it's such a huge change in every part of the browser.
12:22 <@peeja> so, feature-wise, are we halfway through our 1.8 development?
12:22 <@ss> Feature-wise, we're almost done.
12:22 <@ss> But calling it 1.8 or 1.9 makes it seem like 2.0 is around the corner.
12:23 <@ss> A heft .5 bump is normal for products.
12:23 <@peeja> yeah, i'm starting to agree with 1.5
12:23 <@smorgan> We've always made big improvements before
12:23 <@pinkerton> how much real work is it to change it?
12:23 <@pinkerton> let's talk schedule
12:23 <@smorgan> We've always called them 0.1
12:24 <@froodian> Also... this is a crappy reason, but it exists.  Everybody else is doing it. 
                  while we stick with .0->.1 for a years worth of huge changes, firefox gets >.5, 
                  and Safari usually gets ~1.
12:24 <@ss> It's almost none.
12:24 <@pinkerton> is it like 10 minutes?
12:24 <@froodian> so other browsers progress faster than us
12:24 <@froodian> regardless of dev speed
12:24 <@ss> mento: How long would the bump take?
12:24 <@delliott> froodian: iTunes went from 5 -> 6 in a matter of months which was a nonsense.
12:24 <@ardissone|food> it's something that would have to be done regardless (a bump) for 1.1rc
12:24 <@ss> Yep.
12:25 <@ss> We have to bump it no matter what for final.
12:25 <@ardissone|food> fixing trunk would have to be done, tho
12:25 <@ardissone|food> but that's still 6 files
12:25 <@pinkerton> ok, let's do it then. it's not extra work. i think it's warranted.
12:25 <@ss> Sure
12:25 <@ss> Sounds like a decision to me.
12:25 <@pinkerton> i don't care if people think we're marketing whores.
12:26 <@peeja> pinkerton: i'm quoting you on that
12:26 <@pinkerton> they can come to my hotel and give me cash
12:26 <@ss> Haha
12:26 <@ss> Now, let's talk about schedule for 1.5.
12:26 <@ss> As soon as those few bugs are done, we'll "RC".
12:26 <@ss> Then give it a week or so of testing?
12:27 <@ss> For 1.0, our RC was our final version.
12:27 <@ardissone|food> i'd like to see the fx import bug make it, if it's good code
12:27 <@ss> Does that sounds fair again for l10n and such?
12:29 <@ardissone|food> i stubbed in the "final" (aka short-form) relnotes on the wiki the other 
                        day
12:30 <@pinkerton> k
12:30 <@ardissone|food> they will need some work, but not too terribly hard
12:30 <@ardissone|food> (just some time :( )
12:30 <@ss> So, let's talk about RCing in two weeks.
12:30 <@ss> Does that sound good to everyone?
12:30 <@ardissone|food> i can do that
12:30  * froodian nods
12:30 <@ss> pink?12:30 <@ardissone|food> i should be back-ish next Weds
12:31 <@pinkerton> sorry what?
12:31 <@pinkerton> ok sure
12:31 <@ss> RC in two weeks.
12:31 <@ss> Consider it done.
12:32 <@ss> Beyond that, everyone work on 1.1 bugs and focus on them.
12:32 <@ss> If you have none, start thinking about 1.2 and doing a few bugs toward that.
12:32 <@ss> And, everyone try out Google Desktop for Mac.
12:32 <@peeja> :D
12:32 <@ss> ;)
12:32 <@froodian> s/1.1/1.5/
12:32 <@froodian> s/1.2/1.6/
12:32 <@ss> Yeah, that too.
12:33 <@ardissone|food> think about what sorts of things we want in 1.6
12:33 <@smorgan> Gee, when the biggest supporter can't even keep track of the change, how could 
                 there possibly be confusion :P
12:27 <@ardissone|food> no, we respun
12:27 <@ardissone|food> for 1.1
12:27 <@ardissone|food> er 1.0
12:27 <@ardissone|food> we kept landing a few things
12:27 <@ss> We did?
12:27 <@ss> It's all hazy now.
12:27 <@ardissone|food> i don't think we should do that here
12:27 <@ardissone|food> unless there are show-stoppers
12:28 <@ss> So we RC then go final unless there any show stoppers?
12:28 <@ss> That sounds good to me.
12:28 <@ardissone|food> how far along is l10n?
12:28 <@ss> We can give l10n as long as they need.
12:28 <@ardissone|food> anyone heard anything?
12:28 <@ss> No where, afaict.
12:28 <@ardissone|food> :(
12:28 <@ss> Any progress is internal, I bet.
12:33 <@ss> Haha
12:33 <@ardissone|food> besides tab scrolling/dragging
12:33 <@ss> I just got up and we *just* made the change. ;)
12:33  * delliott hides
12:33 <@peeja> applescript support!
12:33 <@ss> Tabs are the big things and we need to decide on one or two more "major" features.
12:33 <@ss> So start thinking.
12:34 <@ss> And we'll see you all back here next week.
12:34 <@ardissone|food> some thoughts: http://wiki.caminobrowser.org/User:Sardisson/Camino_1.2
12:34 <@ardissone|food> feel free to have thoughts of your own there or elsewhere
12:35 -!- peeja has quit [Quit: peeja]
12:35 -!- froodian was kicked from #camino-mtg by froodian [froodian]
12:35 <@murph> sounds good everyone, take care.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox