Difference between revisions of "Status Meetings:2006-10-04:Agenda"

From Camino Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(copy over queue queries, update time lag stats, l10n of license.r?)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
*: ''additional pros/cons in italics by [[User:sardisson|sardisson]], who'd really like to see a unified Camino build nonetheless''
 
*: ''additional pros/cons in italics by [[User:sardisson|sardisson]], who'd really like to see a unified Camino build nonetheless''
 
* l10n of license.r on dmg?  Is that feasible tech-wise?
 
* l10n of license.r on dmg?  Is that feasible tech-wise?
 +
* We might want to update http://www.caminobrowser.org/development/roadmap/ since the dates for 1.1 and 1.2 have changed
  
 
==Specific bugs that need action==
 
==Specific bugs that need action==

Revision as of 09:27, 28 September 2006

Wed 04 Oct 9am PDT (16:00 GMT/UTC) in #camino-mtg

General Plans

  • Camino 1.1 Alpha 1
  • Fixing Core-caused breakage in Camino in a timely fashion
    • Time it took to get biesi's patch (super)reviewed [4 days], to get xpfe-autocomplete fix (super)reviewed [1 day], to get chardet fix (super)reviewed [3 days]
    • Funky select widgets, missing trunk talkback are out of our hands
    • How can we improve? The problems will only increase as xpfe dies....
  • What about putting l10ns into Camino source repository? (by Marcello)
    • I'd like to spend most of my efforts on the community side of Caminol10n, trying to make it better and more productive. Since I already maintain (in a very clumsy way) a cvs repository of l10n packages and text files, why not put them among Camino's source, so that the ML package might be built directly from that place?
    • Pros:
      • I shouldn't work on building and distributing, and I would not be a bottleneck as sometimes happened in the past
      • Unified Camino build more in line with Mac OS X
    • Cons:
      • The build system would need be changed
      • Moving the bottleneck to coordinating cvs checkins
      • Out-of-date translations:
        • Stale files on development branches (e.g., an out-of-date BrowserWindow.nib will hork that language) [could be worked around by keeping nightlies En-only]
        • Non-updated l10ns still in cvs across branch changes or emergency new strings on a stable branch (e.g., Pirate 1.0.x never gets updated for 1.x, or in the event string changes are needed for 1.0.x+1)
    additional pros/cons in italics by sardisson, who'd really like to see a unified Camino build nonetheless
  • l10n of license.r on dmg? Is that feasible tech-wise?
  • We might want to update http://www.caminobrowser.org/development/roadmap/ since the dates for 1.1 and 1.2 have changed

Specific bugs that need action

Queries

Camino 1.1a1

Camino 1.1

Queues

Retrieved from "http://wiki.caminobrowser.org/index.php?title=Status_Meetings:2006-10-04:Agenda&oldid=6599"