Difference between revisions of "Log Mac Meeting December 5th 2007"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
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

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@ 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@ 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
Personal tools