Difference between revisions of "Log Mac Meeting December 5th 2007"
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
B michaelsen (Talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Return to Previous meetings page : [[Previous_Mac_Meeting_logs]] | Return to Previous meetings page : [[Previous_Mac_Meeting_logs]] | ||
− | Return to [[ | + | Return to [[Mac_meetings_December_2007|December Meetings]] |
<pre> | <pre> | ||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
[2007-12-05 15:06:36] <PhilippL> Then I guess the meeting is at an end | [2007-12-05 15:06:36] <PhilippL> Then I guess the meeting is at an end | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
+ | [[Category:MacOSX/Minutes]] |
Latest revision as of 10:47, 16 December 2009
Return to Previous meetings page : Previous_Mac_Meeting_logs
Return to December Meetings
[2007-12-05 14:02:37] <PhilippL> 1. Welcome new devs joining Mac OS X port [2007-12-05 14:02:45] <PhilippL> Anyone new here ? [2007-12-05 14:04:02] <PhilippL> It would seem not. [2007-12-05 14:04:15] <PhilippL> 2. Current state of the open CWS's [2007-12-05 14:04:33] <PhilippL> aquavcl04 would be RfQ if not for m238. Awaiting m239 for resyncing. [2007-12-05 14:05:20] <PhilippL> nativeprintdlg01 is mostly done, waiting for a resync to a master containg the dependency CWS kprinter [2007-12-05 14:06:29] <fne> aqua11y01 made some progress, VoiceOver speaks more and more what it should. though a11y is still in an early state [2007-12-05 14:06:32] <cloph> is pgk-config the problem or something else? [2007-12-05 14:06:53] <PhilippL> cloph: the problem for what ? aquavcl04 ? [2007-12-05 14:07:04] <PhilippL> cloph: anyway it's not pkg-config. [2007-12-05 14:07:11] <cloph> Yes, the problem with m238 [2007-12-05 14:07:36] <PhilippL> cloph: no, the installation is broken, plus there are some other P1 issues with m238 [2007-12-05 14:08:26] <PhilippL> cloph: pkg-config would just be nice. And for the record, I agree that Apple should have distributed it if they distribute the config files anyway. [2007-12-05 14:08:49] <PhilippL> cloph: But still it would be nice if we fell back to the default path without it. [2007-12-05 14:08:57] <cloph> Ah, OK, I never tried to install it... :-) [2007-12-05 14:09:17] <cloph> PhilippL: _rene_ did already fixed it after pushing him a little (configure22 cws) [2007-12-05 14:09:31] <PhilippL> cloph: great ! :-) [2007-12-05 14:10:41] <PhilippL> tinor has ported the clipboard to cocoa (and single instance service which should solve of those mysterious bugs) [2007-12-05 14:11:33] <PhilippL> fne: speaking of a11y, is there a workaround yet for the opening floating windows ? (context menu, comboboxes, etc.) [2007-12-05 14:11:51] <fne> not yet [2007-12-05 14:11:51] <tinor> yes the Cocoa port of the clipboard is done, any voluteers for testing highly appreciated [2007-12-05 14:12:04] <tinor> I've checked in everything [2007-12-05 14:12:16] <tinor> Next step is to work on D&D [2007-12-05 14:12:31] <tinor> cws is macosxdnd [2007-12-05 14:12:50] <PhilippL> fne: Well, we might want native context menus anyway. [2007-12-05 14:13:04] <fne> i think that would be the best solution [2007-12-05 14:13:06] <PhilippL> tinor: I'll give it a try, thanks. [2007-12-05 14:13:15] <fne> leopart style *and* a11y [2007-12-05 14:13:20] <fne> -t +d [2007-12-05 14:13:29] <PhilippL> fne: but that will not solve the problem for the other floaters, right ? [2007-12-05 14:13:38] <fne> nope [2007-12-05 14:13:52] <fne> we have to solve that anyway [2007-12-05 14:14:03] <cloph> A side question - will native context menus bring the opportunity to switch GTK's input methods - or is it a mac-only thing? [2007-12-05 14:14:27] <PhilippL> cloph: good question. [2007-12-05 14:14:52] <PhilippL> cloph: yes, theroretically it should be possible then to add the gtkmenu point. [2007-12-05 14:15:13] <PhilippL> cloph: however we don't have native menus yet at all on gtk, so the effort is greater. [2007-12-05 14:15:47] <PhilippL> cloph: actually mac is as of now the only platform where native menus are shown. [2007-12-05 14:16:07] <PhilippL> cloph: they are created on windows, too, for OLE, but not shown to the user AFAIK. [2007-12-05 14:17:14] <PhilippL> next point ? [2007-12-05 14:17:49] <PhilippL> 3. Roundtable [2007-12-05 14:18:42] <PhilippL> As it seems aquavcl04 will not go into the 2.4 tree, but in the ongoing SRC680. The same is probably true for following mac port CWS. [2007-12-05 14:19:02] <PhilippL> Unless someone objects and picks up that bone with _Nesshof_ and blauwal [2007-12-05 14:19:33] <PhilippL> The reasoning is simple: we always aimed for a 3.0 target, so 2.4 trunk does not need our changes. [2007-12-05 14:20:31] <PhilippL> Interesting, I'd expected some opinions about that :-) [2007-12-05 14:20:54] <cloph> :-) [2007-12-05 14:22:49] -->| jsi_sun (i=jogi@nat/sun/x-6408ec62374c46d8) has joined #ooo_macport [2007-12-05 14:22:55] <PhilippL> Any other things to discuss ? [2007-12-05 14:23:06] <PhilippL> hi jsi_sun [2007-12-05 14:23:16] <jsi_sun> PhilippL: moin [2007-12-05 14:23:25] <cloph> Still unclear when to release the next snapshot for the public... [2007-12-05 14:23:34] <PhilippL> jsi_sun: let me repeat for you [2007-12-05 14:23:34] <PhilippL> [2007-12-05 14:23:34] <PhilippL> [14:18] <PhilippL> As it seems aquavcl04 will not go into the 2.4 tree, but in the ongoing SRC680. The same is probably true for following mac port CWS. [2007-12-05 14:23:34] <PhilippL> [14:19] <PhilippL> Unless someone objects and picks up that bone with _Nesshof_ and blauwal [2007-12-05 14:23:34] <PhilippL> [14:19] <PhilippL> The reasoning is simple: we always aimed for a 3.0 target, so 2.4 trunk does not need our changes. [2007-12-05 14:23:34] <PhilippL> [14:20] <PhilippL> Interesting, I'd expected some opinions about that :-) [2007-12-05 14:23:53] <PhilippL> jsi_sun: so do you have an opinion about that from QA's point of view ? [2007-12-05 14:25:29] <jsi_sun> PhilippL: Hmmmm.... the hope was to have a "demo" "early have a look"-version in 2.4 to see that we are working on it. If _Nesshof_ and blauwal do not want it and we do not want to fight for it..... we have to accept. [2007-12-05 14:26:23] <PhilippL> jsi_sun: good question ... are the regular milestones not for that ? [2007-12-05 14:27:06] <PhilippL> OTOH a "sneak preview" based on 2.4 would add a certain user attraction. [2007-12-05 14:27:27] <jsi_sun> PhilippL: cloph asked for a build for the public. A version without general issues is much better to use for it than an in-development tree, or am I wrong? [2007-12-05 14:27:58] <PhilippL> jsi_sun: That's right, however the milestone builds are public, too. [2007-12-05 14:28:08] <jsi_sun> PhilippL: yes, that's what I also said to ericb ... I would like to have a 2.4 without X11 as a preview II or whatever.... [2007-12-05 14:28:31] <PhilippL> Perhaps we should talk to _Nesshof_ [2007-12-05 14:28:32] <jsi_sun> PhilippL: But with a reduced bug count in general it makes more sense to make them public - from testers view. [2007-12-05 14:30:59] <cloph> While milestones are "public" - I'm looking for a replacement of the last snapshot, i.e. a snapshot that is "advertised" on the mac-download pages, made available in a handful of languages.. [2007-12-05 14:32:58] <jsi_sun> cloph: Agree [2007-12-05 14:33:08] <cloph> The last plan was to wait for m237 (since macleopardbuild was integrated into that master), but well, m237 just sucked build-wise... now the plan is to wait for m239 and use that? Or is there another "plan"/other proposals? [2007-12-05 14:33:36] |<-- fipa has left freenode (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) [2007-12-05 14:33:56] -->| _Nesshof_ (n=mh@sd-socks-197.staroffice.de) has joined #ooo_macport [2007-12-05 14:34:01] <PhilippL> Hi _Nesshof_ [2007-12-05 14:34:08] <_Nesshof_> PhilippL: moin [2007-12-05 14:34:31] <PhilippL> Some people here would like to make a "preview" release, possibly multi language, for MacOS/Aqua based on 2.4. [2007-12-05 14:34:55] <PhilippL> Which would benefit from aquavcl04 and other CWS integrated in OOH also [2007-12-05 14:36:12] |<-- mikesic has left freenode () [2007-12-05 14:36:58] <_Nesshof_> what is the advantage of using a 2.4 [2007-12-05 14:37:00] <PhilippL> AFAIK the main arguments against it are a) release engineering manpower and b) possible bugs [2007-12-05 14:37:46] <PhilippL> The main argument in favor is that a release based on 2.4 would have added prominence as well as be more usable than the weekly snapshots. [2007-12-05 14:38:25] <_Nesshof_> what is the expected time frame for this preview release ? [2007-12-05 14:38:49] <PhilippL> TBD; but based on 2.4 would IMHO mean alongside 2.4 [2007-12-05 14:39:35] <_Nesshof_> 2.4 release is begin of March, I would have expected a Mac Preview release earlier [2007-12-05 14:40:00] <PhilippL> why ? our consensus upt to now was to go beta with 3.0 beta ? [2007-12-05 14:40:50] <cloph> March is too late... I'd prefer if there would be a snapshot this year or in early January.... [2007-12-05 14:40:52] <_Nesshof_> and more often [2007-12-05 14:41:10] <PhilippL> well, for that we have the regular milestone builds. [2007-12-05 14:41:24] <_Nesshof_> 3.0 beta will be in April [2007-12-05 14:41:46] <PhilippL> However regular milestone builds on the 2.4 line would be more stable, too. [2007-12-05 14:41:58] <PhilippL> And hence be better suited for "preview" releases. [2007-12-05 14:42:21] <_Nesshof_> I would expect to have Mac previews piublic available whenever there have been significant progress in the port [2007-12-05 14:42:47] <PhilippL> Like the integration of aquavcl04, yes :-) [2007-12-05 14:42:55] -->| dave_largo (n=drichard@207.22.154.120) has joined #ooo_macport [2007-12-05 14:43:02] <_Nesshof_> PhilippL: so you're asking for one or more previews based on 2.4 codeline ? [2007-12-05 14:43:27] <PhilippL> I think people here are asking for that, yes. [2007-12-05 14:44:11] <PhilippL> However this is also a matter of resources of course. [2007-12-05 14:44:18] <_Nesshof_> but you also continue your development efforts on the 3.0 codeline, right ? [2007-12-05 14:44:33] <PhilippL> Of course. I wouldn't stop developing for that. [2007-12-05 14:44:45] <_Nesshof_> so wouldn't it be an extra burden for you to take care of both code lines ? [2007-12-05 14:45:00] <PhilippL> Uh, what ? [2007-12-05 14:45:28] <PhilippL> Is this not a question whether the mac CWS are integrated on OOH and SRC680 like any other 2.4 CWS ? [2007-12-05 14:45:30] <_Nesshof_> to do the work on both, the 2.4 and the 3.0 code line [2007-12-05 14:46:00] <PhilippL> You mean if the code lines are diverging [2007-12-05 14:46:27] <_Nesshof_> the more we also put into OOH the later we will branch off that code line [2007-12-05 14:46:30] <PhilippL> well, yes I think we can provide that merge work if the automatic merge fails. [2007-12-05 14:46:45] -->| fipa (n=fipa@88.103.199.209) has joined #ooo_macport [2007-12-05 14:46:45] =-= Mode #ooo_macport +o fipa by ChanServ [2007-12-05 14:46:49] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: sorry ? [2007-12-05 14:47:22] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: up to now a CWS was cloned and integrated on both branches if slated for the release. Does this change for 2.4 ? [2007-12-05 14:47:44] |<-- lgodard has left freenode ("Leaving.") [2007-12-05 14:47:52] <_Nesshof_> RE will not branch OOH as long as there are only few differneces [2007-12-05 14:48:09] <_Nesshof_> between the two codelines [2007-12-05 14:48:18] <PhilippL> Meaning the branching will not be done after m239 ? [2007-12-05 14:48:33] <PhilippL> This is news to me. [2007-12-05 14:48:44] <_Nesshof_> yes, there was a request to postpone it for one milestone [2007-12-05 14:49:13] <_Nesshof_> and as long as there are no request for integration in 3.0 only we're able to do so [2007-12-05 14:49:30] <_Nesshof_> brand new, last mondays release status meeting [2007-12-05 14:50:18] <PhilippL> Oh, but there need not be discussion anyway ? We let our now active CWS on 2.4 and everything's fine ? [2007-12-05 14:50:38] <_Nesshof_> If you tell me, that you want and you're able to do the work on both codelines, I'm fine with that [2007-12-05 14:50:42] <PhilippL> I wouldn't want to cause that fork when it's not in our intgerest anyway. [2007-12-05 14:51:10] <_Nesshof_> is this the only cws we're talking about ? [2007-12-05 14:51:16] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: well, of course. I'll work for 2.4 on other platforms, too. [2007-12-05 14:51:18] <_Nesshof_> all other will go into 3.0 [2007-12-05 14:51:29] <_Nesshof_> ? [2007-12-05 14:51:42] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: I get contradicting signals here. [2007-12-05 14:51:56] <_Nesshof_> where's here ? [2007-12-05 14:51:57] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: Do you want them on 3.0 or 2.4 = [2007-12-05 14:52:13] <_Nesshof_> PhilippL: you're the boss [2007-12-05 14:52:18] <PhilippL> I though branching of later would be LESS effort for RE. [2007-12-05 14:52:27] <_Nesshof_> PhilippL: yes [2007-12-05 14:52:41] <PhilippL> So I would put CWS in 2.4 mode until QA get's too busy. [2007-12-05 14:52:57] <_Nesshof_> ok [2007-12-05 14:53:11] <PhilippL> there are also nativeprintdlg01, macosxquicktime01, possibly macosxdnd. [2007-12-05 14:53:30] <PhilippL> But only if this really save you effort. [2007-12-05 14:53:32] |<-- fipa has left freenode () [2007-12-05 14:53:50] <PhilippL> I think for QA it's no difference between 2.4 and 3.0 [2007-12-05 14:54:00] <_Nesshof_> are these not required to be in the next preview ? [2007-12-05 14:54:16] <PhilippL> And for development there is no issue with 2.4 CWS either. [2007-12-05 14:54:42] <PhilippL> That depends on the "preview" people I'd say. [2007-12-05 14:55:01] <PhilippL> For me the "preview" would be a regular snapshot containing some integrated CWS. [2007-12-05 14:55:17] * _Nesshof_ agrees with this [2007-12-05 14:55:38] <PhilippL> traditionally I believe eric has built some builds containing merges of other CWS. [2007-12-05 14:56:17] <_Nesshof_> that seems to be popular [2007-12-05 14:56:36] <_Nesshof_> but makes it difficult to reproduce [2007-12-05 14:56:50] <_Nesshof_> this can't be an option for us [2007-12-05 14:56:53] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: yes, that's why pavel didn't like them either :-) [2007-12-05 14:57:23] <_Nesshof_> in German this is called "Frickelei" :-) [2007-12-05 14:57:32] <PhilippL> So if you're really fine with our CWS being on track for 2.4 I'd say wie stay with that. [2007-12-05 14:57:40] <_Nesshof_> ok [2007-12-05 14:58:33] <PhilippL> As a side note: are there integration requests yet for specific 3.0 CWS ? [2007-12-05 15:01:02] <_Nesshof_> PhilippL: whom do you ask ? [2007-12-05 15:01:21] <PhilippL> aehm, you ? I was just curious. [2007-12-05 15:01:38] <_Nesshof_> then i didn't the question right [2007-12-05 15:02:01] <_Nesshof_> yes, they are, but not yet approved by QA [2007-12-05 15:02:10] <PhilippL> ah, yes. [2007-12-05 15:03:30] <PhilippL> _Nesshof_: thank you very much for clearing this up. I thought we would cause extra effort if we stayed with 2.4 CWS but if it actually would cause the fork then I think everybody is better off with them. [2007-12-05 15:04:57] <PhilippL> Anyone any points left to discuss ? [2007-12-05 15:05:24] -->| lgodard (n=lgodard@AGrenoble-152-1-25-233.w82-122.abo.wanadoo.fr) has joined #ooo_macport [2007-12-05 15:06:18] -->| mikesic (n=mikesic@adsl-70-242-31-206.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net) has joined #ooo_macport [2007-12-05 15:06:18] =-= Mode #ooo_macport +o mikesic by ChanServ [2007-12-05 15:06:36] <PhilippL> Then I guess the meeting is at an end