Dec 16 10:31 <chen> General project update,
Dec 16 10:31 <chen> we just had the 2.28.2 release this monday,
Dec 16 10:32 <chen> we have 2.29.4 coming up on dec 21 again coming monday
Dec 16 10:32 <chen> so if you have patches make sure they are committed before monday and also keep an eye on patch reviews :)
Dec 16 10:33 <jony|out> hello
Dec 16 10:33 *jony|out is now known as jony
Dec 16 10:33 <chen> There is no specific agenda for this meeting. we still have some pending items such as wiki which we have discussed last week,
Dec 16 10:33 <chen> any volunteers for taking up the wiki migration or /me will take it up.. ?
Dec 16 10:34 <chen> we have the script suggested by dave, but need to try to out :)
Dec 16 10:34 <mcrha> dave_largo was willing to do that
Dec 16 10:34 <mcrha> ~ a week ago
Dec 16 10:34 <jony> chen: i can't would be travelling too much this month . sorry .
Dec 16 10:34 <chen> let me speak with dave after the meet then :)
Dec 16 10:34 <chen> jony, np
Dec 16 10:35 <chen> does anyone have anything to be discussed before we can move around the room for individual updates.. ?
Dec 16 10:35 <chen> looks like no.
Dec 16 10:35 <chen> updates from my side,
Dec 16 10:36 <chen> was working a bit on imapx and started on the blocker - folder summary mismatch,
Dec 16 10:36 <chen> you can see a discussion going on in e-h list. once we decide on a approach, will get it done.
Dec 16 10:36 <seb128> do you plan to get the blockers fixed in 2.28 too?
Dec 16 10:37 <chen> seb128, certain bugs yes, but am not sure about the above one mentioned which is,
Dec 16 10:37 <seb128> right, I know about this bug ;-)
Dec 16 10:37 <chen> thats it from my side
Dec 16 10:37 <chen> seb128, :)
Dec 16 10:38 <chen> andre, anything to share?
Dec 16 10:38 <seb128> I'm interested to see 2.28 bugs fixed since we are staying on this version this cycle for the coming ubuntu
Dec 16 10:38 <seb128> which is also a lts version
Dec 16 10:38 <andre> nope
Dec 16 10:38 <chen> seb128, yup so we are choosing the ones which are really critical and staying around for some time,
Dec 16 10:39 <chen> seb128, and akhil is providing us with a list of issues once in every 2 weeks,
Dec 16 10:39 <seb128> good
Dec 16 10:39 <chen> so if the fixes does not have any string/ui breaks kind,
Dec 16 10:39 <chen> they will be taken in stable for sure
Dec 16 10:40 <chen> and we can obviously take some exceptions form release team in needed cases
Dec 16 10:40 <seb128> nice
Dec 16 10:40 <chen> mbarnes, updates?
Dec 16 10:40 <mbarnes> mainly been refactoring code to allow Anjal to work with Evo 2.29
Dec 16 10:40 <mbarnes> the issue is srag is proposing to store Anjal source code in Evolution's git repo in order to reuse code
Dec 16 10:40 <mbarnes> that seems like a bad idea to me, so I'm trying to make our APIs more flexible for him
Dec 16 10:40 <chen> mbarnes, cool, thats the better way
Dec 16 10:41 <chen> abharath, updates?
Dec 16 10:41 <abharath> chen: nothing much in here. Would be back to fixing MAPI issues soon
Dec 16 10:41 <chen> mbarnes, btw i saw srag tweet that he was very happy with whatever you have been doing for anjal :)
Dec 16 10:41 <chen> abharath, ok
Dec 16 10:42 <chen> jonner, updates?
Dec 16 10:42 <mbarnes> chen: been sending him regular status updates is all
Dec 16 10:42 <chen> cool :)
Dec 16 10:42 <chen> jony, updates?
Dec 16 10:42 <jony> chen: i haven't been able to write any code for last 1.5 weeks. been reading a lot. thatz it from me.
Dec 16 10:42 <jonner> i just committed a bit of a refactor on the mail-folder-cache. so keep an eye out for potential regressions.
Dec 16 10:43 <jony> chen: been looking at recurrences for mapi. (just to be more specific)
Dec 16 10:43 <chen> jonner, was about to ask that :)
Dec 16 10:43 <chen> it was for jony :)
Dec 16 10:43 <chen> jonner, sure!
Dec 16 10:44 <chen> lakhil, updates?
Dec 16 10:44 <chen> mcrha, updates?
Dec 16 10:44 <lakhil> chen: patch testing, bug triaging and sle stuff
Dec 16 10:44 <mcrha> nothing interesting, I'm afraid. Just poking here and there
Dec 16 10:44 <chen> lakhil, cool
Dec 16 10:45 <mcrha> thanks to treitter for fixing the e-calendar-factory crasher
Dec 16 10:45 <chen> mcrha, afraid, really ? :D
Dec 16 10:45 <lakhil> mcrha: care on poking :-P
Dec 16 10:45 <treitter> mcrha: no problem :)
Dec 16 10:45 <lakhil> s/care/carry
Dec 16 10:45 <chen> mcrha, yup that was nice fix!!
Dec 16 10:45 <mcrha> chen, yeah, just a boring stuff
Dec 16 10:45 <chen> seb128, anything to share ?
Dec 16 10:45 <chen> treitter, updates?
Dec 16 10:45 <seb128> not really, going to use 2.28 for coming ubuntu if you didn't read before
Dec 16 10:46 <seb128> we decided that 2.29 is too much changes especially for the lts coming
Dec 16 10:46 <chen> ah ok
Dec 16 10:46 <treitter> so, I fixed the factory crashers mentioned above; my treitter-client-gdbus port of e-d-s continues
Dec 16 10:46 <chen> seb128, is it not a decision too early?
Dec 16 10:46 <chen> treitter, nice!
Dec 16 10:46 <lakhil> seb128: but you only were ready to get dbus in at 2.28.x it slef .. wouldn't it be good to have testing on 2.29.x .. just my thoughts
Dec 16 10:47 <treitter> I've got libebook 99% ported; I can't completely rip out dbus-glib because of one function we need. GDBus includes the functionality, but I can't get it to work
Dec 16 10:47 <seb128> chen, well rather than upgrading to figure it's too broken and have a complexe rollback plan we decided to stay on a known version
Dec 16 10:47 <treitter> davidz (the author of gdbus) is going to look at my branch within the next few days, hopefully, to see if he can figure out why it doesn't work
Dec 16 10:47 <seb128> lakhil, I tried to push to get some of the changes in 2.28 so we could be confident in 2.29
Dec 16 10:47 <seb128> but that failed
Dec 16 10:47 <treitter> today, if I can manage, I'll port all of libecal to gdbus as well
Dec 16 10:47 <chen> treitter, ah ok, whats the function ? (just curious)
Dec 16 10:48 <seb128> lakhil, there is just too many changes this cycle and we think the upgrade would be risky especially for a lts version
Dec 16 10:48 <chen> treitter, that would be great!
Dec 16 10:48 <seb128> which are supposed to be rock stable
Dec 16 10:48 <treitter> chen: dbus_g_proxy_new_for_name_owner()
Dec 16 10:48 <seb128> 2.30.0 will likely have some rough edges, which is normal with that many refactoring
Dec 16 10:48 <lakhil> seb128: but it has it's own benefits .. like preference dialog pops in fraction in 2.29.x ..
Dec 16 10:49 <lakhil> due to kill-bonobo
Dec 16 10:49 <chen> treitter, ok
Dec 16 10:49 <abharath> lakhil: mbarnes http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberorg/4166108642/in/set-72157622953080066/
Dec 16 10:49 <treitter> chen: it blocks until the specific owner of the proxy returns. We need that specific name instead of the service name, but the gdbus way of getting that name doesn't work for me (throws out a bunch of errors)
Dec 16 10:49 <chen> thats not the one i saw in one another bug in dbus which mentioned about threading issues
Dec 16 10:49 <seb128> lakhil, I don't argue that the new version is not nice, we just trust it will not be as stable immediatly
Dec 16 10:49 <seb128> we will probably have a ppa version for those who want 2.30
Dec 16 10:50 <abharath> that's the one from foss.in with Evolution preference dialog popping up awesome :D GNOME Performance
Dec 16 10:50 <lakhil> seb128: sure .. that will be nice
Dec 16 10:50 <chen> treitter, ok got it
Dec 16 10:50 <treitter> the libecal test functionality seems to have decayed, so I'm going to build up a very small suite of basic tests to reduce the risk of breaking it in my port to gdbus
Dec 16 10:50 <treitter> oh, and I've built up the libebook tests in my branch a bit
Dec 16 10:51 <treitter> so now when you run "make check", it runs 12 specific tests
Dec 16 10:51 <chen> treitter, do u see any performance hits too?
Dec 16 10:51 <treitter> chen: I haven't noticed any
Dec 16 10:51 <chen> treitter, a good thing to have esp. for testing some regressions
Dec 16 10:51 <treitter> but I haven't checked carefully
Dec 16 10:51 <chen> treitter, ok
Dec 16 10:51 <treitter> if anything, it feels slightly faster
Dec 16 10:51 <chen> nice nice!!
Dec 16 10:52 <treitter> and it's possible, with effort, we could make it even faster. GDBus is more geared toward doing things async than dbus-glib is
Dec 16 10:52 <chen> treitter, cool :)
Dec 16 10:52 <treitter> but I don't have any plans to do that, since getting the port done is my highest priority right now :)
Dec 16 10:52 <chen> treitter, btw how come there are issues with functionality,
Dec 16 10:52 <chen> when only the transport mechanism has changed ?
Dec 16 10:53 <treitter> chen: it's directly an issue with gdbus
Dec 16 10:53 <treitter> either I was misuing it or it's got a bug or two
Dec 16 10:53 <chen> ah ok
Dec 16 10:53 <chen> ok
Dec 16 10:53 <treitter> but I don't think there have been any real-world apps using it yet, so I may be pushing it where it hasn't been tested yet
Dec 16 10:54 <treitter> it's been surprisingly smooth though
Dec 16 10:54 <chen> treitter, agree evo can be a real test for it :)
Dec 16 10:54 <chen> anything else to be discussed from anyone ?
Dec 16 10:55 <chen> Lets catch up next week with more interesting stuff :)
Dec 16 10:55 <chen> Thanks everyone!!