Ticket Review 16 March 2007

Date: 2007-03-16 11:00:07

Agenda: http://icon.stoa.org/trac/pleiades/wiki/TicketReviewAgenda2007-03-16

Chairs

  • Tom Elliott (paregorios)
  • Sean Gillies (sgillies)

Participants

  • Gabriel Bodard (gbodard)
  • Hugh Cayless (hcayless)
  • Tom Elliott (paregorios)
  • Sean Gillies (sgillies)
  • Brian Turner (bdturner)
  • Hafed Walda (Hafed)

Topics

Issues

Action Items

  • sgillies to write a GenericSetup story in the wiki [new]
  • sgillies to incorporate bug #212 fix into our GenericSetup profile [new]
    • update: 20 March 2007: done in changeset [704]
  • paregorios to add a new timePeriod attribute to TemporalAttestation? and add calculated titles [new]
    • update: 15 March 2007: this was completed with changeset [696]
  • paregorios to consult community about place types [new]
  • paregorios to create FAQ on setting up chatzilla to work with our tracker [new]
  • sgillies to create task tickets for rollout of milestone:"Vocabulary Management" [new]
    • update: 20 March 2007: done

Transcript

Please note: this transcript has been edited for clarity.

Introduction

  • paregorios: welcome everyone to the roadmap/ticket review meeting
  • paregorios: the plan is ... to more or less follow the agenda
  • paregorios: any objections?
  • paregorios: I hear no complaints, so we'll more on to the first topic

Review Of Milestone milestone:"Vocabulary Management"

  • sgillies: vocabularies are Plone's site-wide thesauri
  • sgillies: to insure consistency of data entry ...
  • paregorios: the description for the milestone *should* have linked to our Vocabularies wiki page ... I'll fix it
  • sgillies: and we're also going to marshall them into schemes for our feeds
  • sgillies: so that you can monitor the site for changes to "temples", or "hellenistic"
  • sgillies: paregorios: as usual, i'd like to go through the upcoming milestone's tickets, then on to unassigned tickets
  • paregorios: +1
  • paregorios: +1
  • paregorios: any objections?
  • sgillies: there are a number of portal function tickets that no one is complaining about
  • sgillies: then we can change the due date by only 2 dats
  • sgillies: days
  • paregorios: Tuesdays are better for release/update than Fridays anyway
  • bdturner: agreed
  • paregorios: I see no objections

Issue bug #2

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #2
  • sgillies: that's an example of something i want to defer
  • paregorios: that's a plone problem anyway, no?
  • sgillies: yes
  • paregorios: what milestone will you defer to?
  • sgillies: no, it's not just a plone problem. i have some hacks to the ldap plugin i need to formalize
  • sgillies: workflow prime
  • paregorios: so it's a feedback into plone thing too ... i.e., one of our code contributions back into the wider product?
  • sgillies: i hope so
  • paregorios: in any case, right now we're not in need of it badly ... not until we've got workflow in place and are ready to start editing content like mad
  • sgillies: right
  • sgillies kicks bug #2
  • paregorios: defer to workflow prime?
  • sgillies: done

Issue bug #18

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #18
  • paregorios: does changeset [689] fix this?

  • sgillies: here's the deal: we have places from the barrington atlas, portal skins, and user profiles to maintain and are working on the best way to setup sites for testing and deployment
  • sgillies: to date, we've written scripts in the portal, but are moving to Plone's new setup facility, GenericSetup
  • sgillies: it's a more declarative way, specify the outcome of your setup instead of writing procedures
  • sgillies: i'm up to my neck in it right now :)
  • paregorios: does this need its own milestone?
  • sgillies: i can't believe i never accepted that ticket
  • sgillies: paregorios: i have reduced it's scope. update your view of the ticket
  • sgillies: i figure we can chip away at it in every milestone
  • sgillies: i *should* write a story in the wiki
  • sgillies makes a todo
  • paregorios: ACTION: sgillies to write a GenericSetup story in the wiki
  • sgillies: moving on ...
  • paregorios: sgillies:
  • paregorios: do we need tickets for other aspects of "scriptable setup" now that the scope of bug #18 is narrowed?
  • paregorios: or will the story todo generate same?
  • sgillies: the latter, i think
  • paregorios: +1
  • paregorios: moving on

Issue bug #158

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #158
  • sgillies: it's actually not so bad
  • sgillies: the timeouts only occur if the script is run through our apache-proxied connections
  • paregorios: close as won't fix?
  • sgillies: if we go straight to zope like http://icon.stoa.org:8080/plone/load_entities there is no problem
  • sgillies: it takes a while, but doesn't time out
  • sgillies: as long as we load in batches of < 1000, should be fine
  • sgillies: i'm going to mark it wontfix
  • paregorios: +1
  • sgillies: done

Issue bug #212

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #212
  • sgillies: i can do this today or monday
  • paregorios: +1
  • paregorios: ACTION: sgillies to incorporate bug #212 fix into our GenericSetup profile
  • paregorios was just greedily doing so
  • sgillies: that's how we map a filesystem hierarchy into Plone objects
  • paregorios: :)
  • sgillies: very handy
  • paregorios: and intuitive!
  • sgillies: plone 3 makes the bridge between the quickinstaller and generic setup, and we'll be able to load these kind of extension profiles through the qi
  • sgillies: moving on ...

Issue bug #221

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #221
  • paregorios: this one is problematic ... a couple of comments first:
  • paregorios: bug #263 is related
  • paregorios: and has to be dealt with at the same time
  • paregorios: the full suite of things that need to be done cannot be accomplished by Monday/Tuesday; however,
  • paregorios: I could take some partial steps
  • sgillies: as i read it, we could punt this one. workflowed vocabularies aren't within the scope of this milestone
  • sgillies: we're just concerned with loading our initial vocabs
  • paregorios: that's not really the main point
  • paregorios: the main problem is, right now, the title of a TemporalAttestation? *is* the name of the time period
  • paregorios: we do not want it to be possible to create ad hoc time periods by entering arbitrary strings into the title field of a TemporalAttestation? object
  • paregorios: right now this is perfectly possible
  • sgillies: oh, i get it
  • paregorios: I propose to limit the values on TemporalAttestation?.title through a regular ATVM/Vdex enfored vocab
  • paregorios: but punt getting a selection widget to make it easy to the Sensible Help milestone
  • paregorios: *or* alternatively
  • paregorios: change the structure of TemporalAttestation? so title is not == time period
  • sgillies: yep
  • paregorios: but there's a new time period attribute that *is* ATVM/vocab controlled
  • sgillies: title = "Attested: %s" % time_period
  • paregorios: and title is autocalculated (we could then bubble up the certainty issues into the title)
  • sgillies: something like that
  • paregorios: yes
  • paregorios: and then we don't have to fight with the damned page templates
  • paregorios: reclassing stock plone/AT title attributes is fraught with peril
  • sgillies: that particular issue seems pretty easy
  • sgillies: we just override TemporalAttestation?.Title
  • paregorios: I probably can pull off that latter solution by Monday/Tuesday and take care of both bugs
  • sgillies: like i've done for Place, Location, etc
  • paregorios: yes ... I plan to steal your code with wild abandon
  • sgillies: ok, bug #212 stays
  • sgillies: any more on that one?
  • paregorios: ACTION: paregorios to add a new timePeriod attribute to TemporalAttestation? and add calculated titles
  • paregorios: done

Issue bug #238

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #238

Issue bug #239

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #239
  • sgillies: +1
  • paregorios: done

Issue bug #251

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #251
  • sgillies: our smart folders will soon be based on the vocabularies instead of the indexes
  • sgillies: although the two should be perfectly synched
  • paregorios: we'll want to look at performance there
  • paregorios: I think ATVocabularyManager wakes up objects alot
  • paregorios: but we'll see
  • sgillies: hmm
  • paregorios: our code puts most (all?) of those fields into indexes anyway, so we can make use of the atvm keys via the catalog with very little trouble
  • sgillies: you may be right there, but performance won't be an issue for creation of the smart folders
  • paregorios: the smart folders will do that anyway ... they only work on cataloged info
  • paregorios: right
  • paregorios: I think it's a case of *and* rather than *or*
  • sgillies: ok
  • sgillies: i agree that we need to get the TOs to look at the place types
  • paregorios: ACTION: paregorios to consult community about place types
  • paregorios: I hear no objections ... punting bug #251
  • sgillies: slightly ot: i clued the georss people in to the ADL feature type schema
  • paregorios: done punting bug #251
  • paregorios: sgillies: via the georss list?
  • paregorios: if so, I missed that message
  • sgillies: i'm still puzzled by the knowledge gap between the ucsb geography folks and the open source/geowanker communities

Issue bug #263

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #263
  • sgillies: what's the scoop?
  • paregorios: see discussion above under bug #221 ... I can fix this by Monday/Tuesday
  • paregorios: question of using "keys" as opposed to namestrings ... and dependencies in loader.py
  • sgillies: short keys are crucial
  • paregorios: +1
  • paregorios is confident sgillies will simply adore the results
  • sgillies:
  • sgillies: shall we move on?
  • paregorios: +1

Issue bug #265

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #265
  • paregorios: I think this will be a really good thing ... if it's too much to do for Monday/Tuesday it would fit nicely in milestone:"Sensible Help"
  • sgillies: i think i can get this done on monday through a combination of gs profile and a python script
  • paregorios: ok
  • paregorios: sgillies: so you'll accept and move us on to bug #1?
  • sgillies: yes

Issue bug #1

  • sgillies: ISSUE: bug #1
  • paregorios: we're doing this manually right now, yes?
  • sgillies: sending this one to join ticket #2
  • paregorios: +1
  • sgillies: finished
  • sgillies: so, we have 5 active tickets
  • paregorios: any other issues on this milestone?
  • sgillies: i think we hit them all
  • paregorios: I assume that, when complete, we'll push all the software changes out to http://pleiades.stoa.org
  • paregorios: and update the data accordingly
  • sgillies: right. i'll create several task tickets
  • sgillies: monday we can try it out on pleiades-dev
  • sgillies: let's wait
  • paregorios: ok

Orphan Tickets

Unaccepted Tickets

  • sgillies: but no unassigned tickets
  • paregorios: correct
  • paregorios: so I think we needn't worry about that for now ... the current milestone is under control
  • sgillies: yep

Roadmap Review

  • sgillies: no unassigned tickets means that nobody is seriously using the site
  • paregorios: sgillies: explain
  • sgillies: all non-trivial systems and software have bugs. if no bugs are being reported, it means that we don't have any new users. at least not in the last week
  • sgillies: that's the "number of bugs is an indicator of project health" theory
  • sgillies: soon enough :)
  • paregorios: all by Chris Lilley
  • sgillies: i'm not worried now
  • paregorios: I think users are presently expressing themselves in other ways
  • paregorios: Bahadir Duman's experiments on the portal ... like those of Chris Lilley, Sebastian Heath and others earlier on
  • paregorios: they indicate interest and express priorities
  • sgillies: but hopefully the ticket tracker will be a testament to a user/developer community
  • sgillies: become one
  • paregorios: the subsequent discussion, this week, on the community list about prioritieis is also surfacing some interest
  • sgillies: back to the roadmap discussion ...
  • paregorios: +1
  • sgillies: you wanted to review the big picture>
  • sgillies: ?
  • paregorios: it may be that the discussion now going on on the community list *is* this discussion
  • paregorios: are there any comments or questions from others present at this meeting?
  • sgillies: between the two of us, let's review that thread
  • paregorios: ok
  • hcayless is acting as an observer still :-)
  • paregorios: hcayless: :)
  • sgillies: hcayless: we're at the crossroad between sexy and substantial
  • hcayless: no argument here
  • sgillies: scholarly references, bibliography, essays
  • paregorios: I think Chris Lilley's comments this morning on the community list were very interesting
  • paregorios: it essentially continues his focus on authority, control, editing as already expressed in his tickets
  • paregorios: I hope some other folks on the list will engage with it
  • paregorios: really, it defines a major aspect of the nexus sgillies is describing
  • sgillies: both aspects are important in the mid-term
  • paregorios: both are prerequisites for adoption
  • sgillies: yes
  • paregorios: how many of our folks were on spring break this week ... some substantial number in North America?
  • paregorios: or pushing to get ready for it (i.e., midterms)
  • hcayless: UNC is on break
  • sgillies: about half, right?
  • paregorios: my inclination is to continue to incubate this discussion on the community list for another week ... see what happens on Monday/Tuesday
  • paregorios: all the academic lists have been *very* quiet
  • sgillies: seems like schools try to spread it over a couple weeks
  • sgillies: paregorios: i think our milestones are fine, it's simply a matter of scheduling
  • sgillies: maybe move a few tickets around after the discussion
  • paregorios: agreed

New Business

  • sgillies: do we usually take 90 mins for tickets?
  • sgillies: that's not too bad
  • sgillies: end the session?
  • paregorios: after a few more weeks, with meeting minutes, we'll know
  • paregorios: I second sgillies motion to end the session
  • paregorios: all opposed?
  • paregorios: the ayes have it
  • sgillies: should i have moved to adjourn?
  • sgillies: i am my own rules of order :)
  • paregorios: and here I thought you were a force of nature