|
Parrotsketch Every Tuesday @ 18:30 UTC | IRC Log at irclog.perlgeek.de/parrotsketch/today Set by moderator on 18 February 2009. |
|||
|
01:58
Tene_ joined
03:55
japhb joined
04:59
Tene joined
14:04
Tene joined
16:10
davidfetter joined
17:35
masak joined
17:40
pmichaud joined
17:44
PacoLinux joined
17:49
Util joined
18:07
barney joined
18:09
Infinoid joined
18:27
allison joined
18:32
rurban joined
|
|||
| allison | Hi all, who's here? | 18:32 | |
| rurban | rurban | 18:33 | |
| cotto | cotto | ||
| Infinoid | |||
| Util | 18:34 | ||
| allison | let's get started in alphabetical order. cotto? | ||
| masak | |||
| cotto | * finished a couple more PMC ATTR conversions (Key, Sub) | 18:35 | |
| eor | |||
| allison | Infinoid? | ||
| Infinoid | I haven't had much time for parrot. Some minor website and ticket tweaks, not much else. | 18:36 | |
| 1; | |||
| allison | masak? | ||
| masak | * got some good proto development done | ||
| * was granted, along with ihrd and Tene, a grant for the Perl 6 web thingy | |||
| * slowly coming back to November development | |||
| * some bug reports | |||
| .eof | |||
| allison | rurban? | ||
| rurban | - got single float working, sanitized converters (post 1.0) | 18:37 | |
| - sanitized native_pbc tests | |||
| - looked into jit for long double and amd64, | |||
| but got no 64bit system for 2 weeks to test | |||
| - all tickets on track | |||
| EOR | |||
| allison | Util? | ||
| Util | Just now applied r37099 to fix TT#397. I mentioned it pending at the last #ps meeting. | ||
| While watching for conflicts last week, saw code problems in src/sub.c, that I am writing a ticket for right now. | 18:38 | ||
| I will need other eyes to resolve the issue. | |||
| EOR | |||
| barney came in late | |||
| allison | go ahead barney | ||
| barney | Pipp: | ||
| Added Pipp::Test, without dependency on Parrot::Test | |||
| Try to support building with installed Parrot. | |||
| Support for 'perl Configure.pl --gen-parrot' | |||
| Add src/pmc/Makefile | |||
| Build in HEAD might be broken | 18:39 | ||
| .eor | |||
| allison | anyone else come in? | ||
| ok, allison? | |||
| - Worked on Debian/Ubuntu packaging, prepping for 1.0. | |||
| - Disabled the "EmailVerificationModule" in Trac, so registered users won't be bitten by the bug in TracAccountManager where it displays odd error messages until they verify their email address | |||
| - Set up a 'languages' repository and Trac instance. | |||
| - A large part of the week was absorbed by OSCON planning, but that's pretty much wrapped up now. | 18:40 | ||
| - The primary focus of this week will be ticket resolving. | |||
| EOR | |||
| Questions? | |||
| Infinoid | When parrotcode.org gets aliased to parrot.org, what will happen to planet.parrotcode.org? | ||
| (and are there other subdomains I need to worry about?) | 18:41 | ||
| pmichaud arrives late. | |||
| allison | planet.parrotcode.org can stay, though we should make sure it works as both planet.parrotcode.org and planet.parrot.org | 18:42 | |
| Infinoid | Ok, thanks. | ||
| allison | Infinoid: I can't think of any other subdomains, but we could ask Robert/Ask for a list of what's currently hosted on their DNS | ||
| pmichaud: go ahead and report? | 18:43 | ||
| pmichaud | I primarily worked on getting "is export" to work in Rakudo's settings file, added some more metaoperators, answered questions on the mailing list | 18:44 | |
| Currently we're trying to figure out an optimal 'git' workflow | |||
| Rakudo.org has now migrated away from being a blog to a more traditional site | |||
| Oh, and we issued our first release of Rakudo independent from Parrot (#14, "Vienna") | 18:45 | ||
| eor | |||
| Util | q1q | ||
| allison | returning to questions, Util? | 18:46 | |
| Util | Do Infinoid and I have access to fix dead links in www.pugscode.org/ ? If so, where is the entry point? | ||
| pmichaud | Util: I'm pretty sure it's in the svn repo. | ||
| if not, it's somewhere on feather -- we can fix it from there. I'll look around. | |||
| might be good to ask on #perl6 | |||
| allison | yes, good suggestions | 18:47 | |
| Util | Thanks, I should have thought of that. I will look around myself, and query #perl6 if needed. | ||
| rurban | 1q me | ||
| allison | go ahead rurban | 18:48 | |
| pmichaud | Util: I'm guessing /data/var/www/pugscode.org | ||
| (on feather) | |||
| rurban | pbc with --ops and --pmc. we will deprecate the cmdline options I guess. But cannot we do better? | ||
| allison | rurban: more detail on the question? | 18:49 | |
| rurban | e.g store the names and not the index in the freeze | ||
|
18:49
kj joined
|
|||
| rurban | or store some md5 of all used pmcs and ops and check that | 18:49 | |
| kj comes in late. | |||
| rurban | just some ideas for 2.6 | ||
|
18:50
particle1 joined
|
|||
| rurban | this will need a parrot-dev discussion I guess | 18:50 | |
| allison | rurban: okay, write the ideas up into a proposal later in the year | ||
| kj: anything to report? | 18:51 | ||
| kj | no report, except that I have now access to both windows and MacOS. No activities due to $work :-( | ||
| eor | |||
| allison | kj: access is good, much testing potential | 18:52 | |
| kj | allison: yes, not too mention that it's **FAST** | ||
| allison | particle: anything to report? | ||
| kj: fast is also good | |||
| or, any more questions? | 18:53 | ||
| I have one | |||
|
18:53
Tene_ joined
|
|||
| allison | rurban: are you able to compile trunk on cygwin? I can't. It dies in the dynpmc stage. | 18:54 | |
| rurban | I'll try. | ||
| I just fixed the dynpmc trouble two days ago | |||
| allison | ok, I didn't try today, so I'll try again | ||
| rurban | makefile missed the libs | ||
| allison | (after parrotsketch) | ||
| okay, good (to get that fixed) | 18:55 | ||
| if there are no more questions or reports, will go on to roadmap review | 18:56 | ||
| - implement pdd14-numbers | |||
| AFAIK, no progress | 18:57 | ||
| - pdd26-ast, user docs | |||
| kj | for anybody who wants to follow: Roadmap is at: trac.parrot.org/parrot/wiki/ParrotRoadmap | ||
| allison | pmichaud, tene? | ||
| pmichaud | still working on that. I somewhat expect "user docs" to be part of pct more than the ast itself. | ||
| (part of pct docs) | |||
| I reviewed WhiteKnight++'s documents and have some patches to make there, will do that today. | 18:58 | ||
|
18:58
NotFound joined
|
|||
| allison | pmichaud: aye, so if adequately covered within the pct docs can be considered good | 18:58 | |
| - todo/skip test review | |||
| chromatic not here for update | |||
| - bug/issue tracking, triage, guidelines | |||
| same | 18:59 | ||
| - move languages out of repo (or tarball) | |||
| pmichaud | on that point, how likely is it that we'll have email-to-trac working before release? | ||
| allison | we now have a languages repository to host any remaining languages | ||
| pmichaud | (for bug/issue tracking item) | ||
| allison | pmichaud: coke's been following up on email-to-trac so I don't know the status | 19:00 | |
| pmichaud | it would be good for us to have a definitive "this is how to submit bug reports" before the release. | ||
| rurban | the parrotbug email is also putting tickets into rt | ||
| and not trac | 19:01 | ||
| allison | pmichaud: for now that's "submit a ticket through the web interface" | ||
| pmichaud | rurban: that's why I brought up this point. I added a trac ticket about parrotbug. | ||
| allison | and really, even when email-to-trac is working, the web interface is the preferred method, because it captures more information from the submitter | ||
| pmichaud | (waiting for trac to respond...) | 19:02 | |
| allison: might be worth a note or comment on TT #27, then. | |||
| allison | pmichaud: okay, will do | 19:03 | |
| Tene_ | allison: Seems like I have tuits available again. I was looking to write pdd23 user docs the other day, but didn't know where I should be adding them. | ||
| allison: is anything more-specific than "some kind of user docs somewhere" desired? | 19:04 | ||
| allison | Tene: great, we're moving that kind of documentation to docs/user | ||
| Tene_ | so docs/user/pir/pp00X-exceptions.pod ? | 19:05 | |
| pmichaud | "pp001-intro.pod" ... what does "pp" stand for here? | ||
| Tene: I would think docs/user/exceptions | |||
| c.f. docs/users/pct (for pct documentation) | |||
| allison | Tene: that was a left over from an old naming scheme, you can skip the pp<whatever> | ||
| Tene: (and remove it from the old docs too, if you get a tuit) | |||
| Tene_ | pmichaud: just docs/user/exceptions.pod ? | 19:06 | |
| allison | I like it | ||
| pmichaud | Tene_: docs/user/exceptions/*.pod, I would think. | ||
| Tene_: unless it'll be one file, then exceptions.pod would be okay. | |||
| allison | start with one file, and split it to a directory if it grows | 19:07 | |
| Tene_ | pmichaud: are you thinking that it should cover more than using exceptions from pir? | ||
| from PCT, maybe? I'm trying to figure out why this is separate from pir/ | |||
| pmichaud | I'm thinking pir/ is "how to write PIR programs", not "how to solve <subsystem> from PIR" | 19:08 | |
| maybe I'm wrong -- haven't looked at docs/user/ until just now. | |||
|
19:08
Coke joined
|
|||
| allison | Tene: there is no docs/pir | 19:08 | |
| pmichaud | allison: there's docs/user/pir | ||
| Tene_ | allison: docs/user/pir/ | ||
| pmichaud: but you're not making recommendations on content with that name. Okay. | 19:09 | ||
| I'll try to start on it tonight. | |||
| Coke came in late | |||
| pmichaud | Tene_: it's more important to write something -- we can (likely will) reorganize it all later anyway :-) | ||
| allison | ah, didn't know about the subdirectory, okay, put it in docs/user/pir | ||
| NotFound also | |||
| Tene_ also | |||
| kj | I wonder, if it's about throwing exceptions in PIR, shouldn't it be part of PIR docs...? | 19:10 | |
| pmichaud | so, in this model, where would pct docs go? | ||
| allison | Tene: and definitely only one file then: docs/user/pir/exceptions.pod | ||
| kj | pmichaud: i think there's docs/user/pct.. | ||
| Tene_ | pmichaud: presumably docs/user/pct | ||
| pmichaud | kj: not yet there isn't. | ||
| kj | pmichaud: right. thre's docs/pct | ||
| so perhaps should move that | |||
| into docs/user/pct | |||
| allison | kj: is that developer documentation or user documentation? | 19:11 | |
| kj | allison: is there a difference in case of pct? | ||
| the users /are/ developers if they use pct | |||
| pmichaud | it's for users of pct. | ||
| (as opposed to pct developers) | |||
| kj | yes, I know. ambiguity | ||
| allison | kj: in theory, developer documentation would be for people "developing" pct, while user documentation would be people using it | ||
| kj | pmichaud: yes, exactly | ||
| allison: what pmichaud says :-) | |||
| allison | aye | 19:12 | |
| sounds like this is user documentation | |||
| kj | it's written for helping people out to use pct | ||
| (i wrote it ;-) | |||
| allison | so, move it into user | ||
| pmichaud | I'll update it as well. | ||
| allison | any objections to moving most of the top level docs into docs/developer? | 19:13 | |
| so we'd have docs/user, docs/book, and docs/developer, and not much else | |||
| kj | +1 | ||
| pmichaud | I wonder if we should reverse that | ||
| I wonder if we should have docs/pct/user docs/pct/developer | |||
| if I'm searching for information, I'm more likely to ask "where can I find information about PCT" than "I'm wanting to be a user of PCT" | 19:14 | ||
| allison | pmichaud: for that, I'd say it should be compilers/pct/docs/user | ||
| which we then install into the main docs | |||
| pmichaud | same for pir, though... I'm thinking docs/pir instead of docs/user/pir | ||
| Coke | "where to find docs" is amelerated by a good index. | 19:15 | |
| allison | the reason for the user/ directory is so new users can go to one place to find what they need | ||
| pmichaud | to be honest, I didn't even realize docs/user/ existed until today. | ||
| Coke | bah. ameleorated | ||
| allison: new users should go to docs.parrot.org | 19:16 | ||
| allison | pmichaud: it was only added a month or two ago, and doesn't actually hold much | ||
| pmichaud | to be honest, I would never think to go to docs/user for whatever I was looking for. It's just not a common pattern. | ||
| allison | the directory structure is the last of our worries at the moment, a bigger concern is that our documentation is.... um... not great | 19:17 | |
| kj | I like pmichaud's idea of switching it around, but not sure whether it's worth the trouble. As long as there's a good TOC, it should be ok. | ||
|
19:19
Whiteknight joined
|
|||
| allison | Coke: are you working on docs.parrot.org? | 19:19 | |
| Coke | nothing really to work on. It's just a snapshot of "make html". | ||
| and I'm not working on that atm. | |||
| Infinoid | Last I heard, we were having trouble figuring out what the directory structure of that site should look like | 19:20 | |
| allison | Coke: the domain is up, do we have one snapshot on it? | ||
| Coke | allison: ask for my report. =-) | ||
| allison | right, Coke, anything to report? :) | ||
| Coke | * Continuing TWIP. | ||
| * I am not doing anything with email2trac. I'm just pointing out the lack | |||
| of progress; I think it was infinoid that was working with one of the OSU | |||
| folks. | |||
| * ripped out -j and friends. | |||
| * going through tickets (esp. deprecation tickets). There are many deprecation tickets with "before 1.0" on them. Many of these are waiting for feedback by someone who knows what they are doing. In most of the remaining cases, this isn't me. | |||
| * languages hosted on parrot.org? Feel free to take over this 1.0 task from | |||
| me since I'm out of the loop here. | 19:21 | ||
| * as mentioned in twip and the ticket; docs.parrot.org has a copy of the 0.9.1 release docs. | |||
| I have a question. EOR. | |||
| kj | docs.parrot.org/ doesn't work.. | 19:22 | |
| Whiteknight | (sorry I'm so late, network at work is garbage) | ||
| allison | docs.parrot.org/ gives me 403 Forbidden | ||
| Coke | The url from twip is: | ||
| allison | probably just a permissions problem, can get that fixed quickly | ||
| Coke | docs.parrot.org/parrot/0.9.1/html/index.html | 19:23 | |
| no. there is no top level html file atm. | |||
| we could easily have it redirect to the latest release of the docs. | |||
| Infinoid | I was begging for a static symlink or somesuch that I can permanently link to, at one point. Dunno if that ever got done | ||
| kj | basically no TOC then? | ||
| allison | okay, then we need one. And that is easily fixed | ||
| Infinoid | (without the version number) | ||
| Coke | I can add the redirect to the 0.9.1 docs. | ||
| allison | kj: that index.html is the TOC, but it needs work | ||
| Coke | Infinoid: that was stopped because of my queued question. | 19:24 | |
| allison | kj: feel free to work on it | ||
| Coke: thanks for TWIP, it's great to get the regular news reports | |||
| kj | would that be static html writing? | ||
| Coke | (any improvements to "make html" will be noted in the next release, and in teh snapshot. | ||
| kj | Coke++ #TWIP | ||
| Coke | kj: no. just make "make html" nicer. | ||
| allison | kj: it's the 'make html' target | ||
| kj: a bunch of perl modules | 19:25 | ||
| subclasses of Pod::Simple | |||
| kj | mmm. not sure if have time to figure that out this week.. kinda up the walls here. | ||
| allison | Coke: you had a question? | ||
| kj: no worries, I can keep working on it | 19:26 | ||
| Coke | Yes. There is apparently a discussion that needs to happen about our releases / support policy. You and chromatic seem to have very different ideas of what, say, the 1.1 release indicates. | ||
| pmichaud | (I also have a comment that I think we should not use the term "milestone release") | 19:27 | |
| (at least, not to indicate the six monthish releases) | |||
| Coke | I know we had the email regarding the numbers, but I don't think we addressed what kind of release 1.1 is going to be. | ||
| allison | Coke: yes, we talked about it last wednesday, and it turns out we did have a different idea of what was going on | ||
| Coke | development? stable? | ||
| allison | Coke: seems to be resolved now | ||
| Coke | ORLY? because I haven't seen any clarification anywhere. | 19:28 | |
| allison | 1.1 is development | ||
| Infinoid | I tend to agree with chromatic's view that every release should be considered "stable" | ||
| Coke | that is not the impression i had from chromatic the last time I talked to him on IRC. | ||
| Infinoid | but less-loaded terminology like "latest" works equally well for me | ||
| allison | Coke: as far as I can tell, our public docs are consistent | ||
| Coke | allison: really? did you update your vision document? | 19:29 | |
| allison | Coke: so it was more a matter of synchronizing the understanding behind the docs | ||
| Coke | allison: right now, you seem to understand one thing, and chromatic seems to understand something else. | ||
| pmichaud | docs/project/support_policy.pod still says 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, | ||
| allison | Coke: nothing's changed there, except the version numbers | ||
| Coke | then there's a problem. | ||
| allison | okay, chromatic may still be confused, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be confused | ||
| Coke | ... I am confused. | ||
| pmichaud | I am also confused. | 19:30 | |
| allison | ok, then let's get you unconfused, and not worry about chromatic | ||
| Coke | or rather, I think I know what you mean, but there's a lot of disagreement. | ||
| allison | so, what are you confused about? | ||
| Coke | what does 'development release' mean? | ||
| since that doesn't appear anywhere but your vision doc, I have no clue. | |||
| allison | a development release means we won't support it with bug/security fixes later | ||
| it's just a monthly release, and if you need fixes you upgrade to the next monthly | 19:31 | ||
| Infinoid | does that mean "don't bother reporting bugs"? or just "there won't be a $VERSION.1 point release for any issues we find"? | ||
| allison | Infinoid: the latter | ||
| Coke | I don't think we ever want to not have people report bugs. | ||
| Infinoid | Yeah, that's the answer I was hoping for. | 19:32 | |
| allison | Infinoid: do report bugs, but we won't release 1.1.1 with bug fixes, we'll just release 1.2 | ||
| Infinoid | whereas we will get stuck maintaining 1.2 and 1.0.1 branches | ||
| allison | and, if you're still using 1.1 a year later, and report a problem we've already fixed in 1.4 or 2.0, we'll tell you to upgrade | ||
| NotFound | I'd like to have tons of people trying to report bugs but being unable to find one ;) | ||
| pmichaud | I don't like the negative definition there, though (more) | ||
| instead of saying "a developer release is one where we won't support it with bugfixes", I'd prefer us to say "a <something> release is one that receives support and bugfixes" | 19:33 | ||
| Infinoid | specifically meaning, backported fixes | ||
| allison | yes, we usually define it by "what's special about a stable release" | ||
| Coke | allison: you and chromatic use the word stable differently. | 19:34 | |
| allison | rather than "what's different about a develoment release" | ||
| Coke: yes | |||
| Coke | so, whose names are we using? | ||
| allison | Coke: but stable is an industry-wide standard | ||
| pmichaud | Based on the definitions we have at the moment, I'd prefer "supported release" to "stable release" | ||
| NotFound | We can call it 'target' release, because will be the target for language and module creators and distro packagers, if we don't like the connotations of 'stable' | ||
| Infinoid | pmichaud: Me too. | 19:35 | |
| allison | pmichaud: that's just going to confuse people | ||
| Coke | I don't care, really. I just want /our/ docs to be self consistent. | ||
| pmichaud | "stable" in the industry doesn't mean what "stable" is being used for here. | ||
| at least, not in the way I've been seeing it. | |||
| Infinoid | "supported" is definitely more accurate than "stable" for this usage | ||
| allison | all it really boils down to is "what do we call the FTP directories. They're currently "devel" and "stable", the same as Perl, debian, etc | 19:36 | |
| Coke | perl's devel means something else, though, doesn't it? | ||
| allison | Coke: it means the same thing as our monthly releases, just on a much slower timescale | ||
| Coke | really? because I would never install 5.9.x in production. | ||
| allison | that is, "you can use this, but it's not recommended for production, and we won't support it after the next stable release" | 19:37 | |
| Coke | and I would expect to be able to install parrot 1.3 | ||
| allison | 1.3 should not be used in production | ||
| 1.0 should, 1.4 should | |||
| Infinoid | ... ouch. | ||
| Coke | that is not my expectation. (nor was it chromatics) | ||
| (when last I spoke to him.) | |||
| pmichaud | (nor is it what is commonly used in the industry) | ||
| allison | we're moving away from monthly releases because that's far too rapid a timescale for the average user | 19:38 | |
| so, we define 2 points a year January and July where they really should upgrade | |||
| Coke | why then are we even numbering the monthlies? | ||
| allison | Coke: because we always have | ||
| pmichaud | then we should stop. | ||
| Coke | if we're changing what they /mean/, then we should make them look different. IMO. | 19:39 | |
| pmichaud | the monthly numbers are what are confusing. | ||
| or at least part of the confusion. I mean, I can keep it straight, but I can't explain it to others. | |||
| Infinoid | I would always consider 1.1 to be better than 1.0 | ||
| allison | in terms of changes that are going to go over well with the team, I'd say eliminating version numbers on the monthlies just isn't going to fly | ||
| pmichaud | really? I don't know that it's been seriously proposed or discussed. | ||
| Coke | allison: people complained about the version numbers because of a deeper confusion as to what the hell the plan was. | ||
| allison | okay, let me take a step back and explain the fundamental tension here | 19:40 | |
| chromatic wants to continue on a monthly schedule as we have always done, and doesn't want to add any special value to any releases (at least, that's what I understand) | |||
| (he's not here to clarify) | |||
| pmichaud | I don't understand "don't add any special value to any releases" | 19:41 | |
| Infinoid | I would prefer that we try really hard to make sure *all* of our releases are production-worthy | ||
| allison | but, for interacting with outside users, which we really have to do now, we cannot expect users to upgrade every month | ||
| pmichaud | ("value" is ambiguous for me here) | ||
| allison | we cannot expect distributions to upgrade to each monthly parrot release | ||
| Infinoid | Right. But a user who is following the "industry standard" concepts of release numbering will always grab 1.3 preferentially to 1.0 | 19:42 | |
| allison | so, we have to pick certain releases as standard, and decide to put in extra effort on bug-fixing and packaging on those releases | ||
| Infinoid: what I expect to happen, is that people will catch on to the X.0 series, and ignore the others | 19:43 | ||
| NotFound | Adn recommend such release as target for language and module releases. | ||
| allison | NotFound: exactly | ||
| it really doesn't matter how we number those "stable" releases | |||
| we just have to pick something and stick with it | |||
| Coke | allison: as an example: with your scheme, 1.4 is a big release. 1.5 is really "release candidate for 2.0" | ||
| yes? | 19:44 | ||
| pmichaud | except that there's an industry perception about numbering that we have to consider. | ||
| (thus it does matter how we number the "stable" releases) | |||
| allison | basically, except "release candidate" is a dirty word (I do agree with chromatic on that) | ||
| Coke | (since we may put in/rip out a ton of stuff immediately after the 1.4 release is cut.) | ||
| allison | Coke: yes | ||
| NotFound | I don't see any industrial negative effect with Ubuntu atypical version numbering, for example. | ||
| pmichaud | NotFound: because ubuntu's numbers are strictly date based. | 19:45 | |
| NotFound | pmichaud: because they clearly explains what it means, IMO | ||
| Coke | ok. I'm willing to defer on that argument until we resolve whether or not we're going to have devel releases or not. | ||
| pmichaud | NotFound: and because ubuntu does expect users to use every release. | ||
| allison | pmichaud: yes, and that's why I was leaning toward X.0 and X.5, so we'd have some consistent face to present, but the half-year releases are not that important | ||
| pmichaud | NotFound: i.e., there's no notion of "we're releasing this for our developers, but not for the average user" | ||
| (in the Ubuntu case) | |||
| allison | Coke: that much is decided, we're not changing the monthly cycle | ||
| Coke: it's valuable for training up new release managers | 19:46 | ||
| Coke | allison: that's not what I mean. | ||
| pmichaud | allison: I don't think anyone is proposing that we eliminate the monthly cycle. | ||
| allison | Coke: and for a regular cycle of bugfixes | ||
| Coke: okay | |||
| Infinoid | allison: For upgrades, its true that they're more likely to go to X.0. I'm thinking about new installations though | ||
| Coke | I mean whether or not 5/6 of our releases are going to be "throwaway". | ||
| allison | Infinoid: new installations should also go for 1.0 and 1.4, not 1.3 | 19:47 | |
| Coke | or "devel", or "not stable". | ||
| pmichaud | where "throwaway" means "not recommended for production" | ||
| allison | doesn't matter what you call them, but yes, 5/6 will be not recommended for production | ||
| NotFound | New installations in most cases will be done with: "aptitude install parrot" and equivalents. | ||
| Infinoid | Assuming 1.4 is there. And 1.4 has been released. And the user has some way of knowing that he/she should avoid the latest (non-supported) release | ||
| pmichaud | *that's* what's odd -- the release numbers don't give any indication of "production" versus "non-production" unless you bother to read our support documents. | ||
| Coke | ok. I think that point is still being discussed, but it sounds like you have decided that this is how it is. | ||
| allison | or, more to the point, they'll be available for people who want to fly a little closer to the edge | 19:48 | |
| Infinoid | "release candidate" is ugly, but we could just call the rest of them "monthly snapshots" | ||
| allison | Infinoid: snapshots makes them sound too throwaway | ||
| Infinoid | That's exactly what we're doing, though. So it seems to match reality | ||
| Coke | allison: but it sounds like they /are/ throwaway. | ||
| (from your standpoint.) | |||
| allison | Coke: it's the only thing that meets the requirements of providing a sane, stable interface for users | 19:49 | |
| Coke | allison: which is the only thing? | ||
| allison | Coke: defining some releases as recommended for production | ||
| NotFound | I think that instead of worrying too much about names and numbers connotations we must put care in having a good document that clearly explains what is the version intended to production installations and packagers. | ||
| allison | and, more importantly, we don't have the developer resources to provide production support for every monthly release | 19:50 | |
| we'd be killing ourselves | |||
| pmichaud | NotFound: if our numbering system is too strange, no amount of documentation will help. | ||
| Coke | NotFound: at this point, I'm still trying to resolve what is intended by the release, not what it's called. | ||
| allison | 2 releases a year, we can manage | ||
| Coke | once we know what it /means/, we can come up with names that reflect that. | ||
| that was part of the confusion. | |||
| allison | 1 release a year we can certainly manage | ||
| Infinoid | The thing is, the end users don't really care about parrot at all. If the HLL maintainers get this right (and clearly mention the right version in their docs or install one automatically), I think that should work fine. | ||
| allison | I think they're a psychology barrier here | 19:51 | |
| Coke | Infinoid: I'd agree with that if we knew what HLL interaction was going to look like. | ||
| Infinoid | Coke: Hi, Mr. HLL maintainer! What do you think it should look like? :) | ||
| allison | we're not saying that the monthly releases become somehow less than the releases we've been making the past 3 years | ||
| Coke | Infinoid: I think it should work. I'm not competant to design it, or I'd have done it already. | ||
| allison | they are exactly as important and as stable as our previous monthly releases | 19:52 | |
| pmichaud | allison: this is part of the issue with calling the 6-month releases "stable releases" | ||
| NotFound | Coke: I added today a pir example of HLL interaction at work | ||
| pmichaud | it somehow implies that the monthlies are less than they were before. | ||
| allison | but the January and July releases are something more than any of the releases we've done before | ||
| NotFound | examples/pir/interlangs.pir | ||
| allison | pmichaud: technically, we've only had development releases until this month | ||
| pmichaud | allison: I have no argument with that. | 19:53 | |
| allison | Coke: HLL interaction is 1.4, we will get there :) | ||
| Coke | allison: assigning particular features to particular releases is another concern of mine. I'm sure we'll get there eventually (it's the main reason I'm here.) | 19:54 | |
| rurban | I have a packager problem with the languages. Easiest now is make -C languages co-all; make -C languages all. But I need consistent and reproducible language releases, not a random checkout state. | ||
| allison | Coke: it was the best way to plan out progress | 19:55 | |
| cotto | So if we're recommending the 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, etc releases for general use, are we providing bugfix releases for the most recent of those (and for which kinds of bugs)? | ||
| allison | Coke: it doesn't mean we're fixed in concrete | ||
| Coke | rurban: language packaging should be driven by the languages, not by parrot. | ||
| rurban | So I need a makefile with the language version numbers. And where to get them. | ||
| PerlJam | speaking from the peanut gallery, I think users only really care what releases they can get support for. If you're consistent about saying that the .0 and .5 releases have support and the others do not have support (but are still "stable"), then that sounds fine to me. | ||
| NotFound | Coke: I said last week: It's like TAP, we have a plan, but we can skip ;) | ||
| allison | cotto: critical bugs and security fixes will be backported to the stable releases | 19:56 | |
| NotFound: yes :) | |||
| Coke | Ok. /if/ we go with 2 a year being 'special', and the others just being 'monthlies' (insert your favorite words here) ...> | 19:57 | |
| allison | rurban: the languages are all moving out of the repository, so you have a different packaging problem | ||
| pmichaud | rurban: I don't think we expect Parrot's Makefiles to build the languages. | ||
| Coke | Then if we have two different kinds of releases, I would recommend calling them two different things. | ||
| allison | Coke: yes | ||
| Coke: and agreed on calling them two different things | 19:58 | ||
| rurban | I only have the co-all problem, which needs to be replaced with tar ball urls. Hmm | ||
| Coke | because the scheme we ended up with was kind of predicated on part of chromatic's argument about how releases were going to work. | ||
| allison | rurban: each language should be a separate package | ||
| rurban | yes, as with fedora | ||
| Coke | rurban: I don't think it's reasonable for parrot to keep track of the language's releases and repositories and recommend versions. | ||
| allison | Coke: you mean 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1,3...? | ||
| pmichaud | I think it's always been understood (at least by me) that we would have two different kinds of releases. | 19:59 | |
| I think even chromatic recognizes that. | |||
| Coke | allison: I think with our current scheme, calling the first 'special' release 1.0 and the first 'monthly' 1.1 will only confuse. | ||
| pmichaud: part of the issue is how those releases would differ. | |||
| pmichaud | Coke: the special releases have extra care put into them, and receive backports | ||
| Coke: the other releases don't | |||
| allison | Coke: I don't hold that particularly strongly, but I also don't have any other suggestions that would be clearer | ||
| rurban | cannot we say x.0 is stable, x.4/6 is a deprecation point and the rest are unstable, devel releases? | ||
| allison | we could do 1.0 and 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5 | 20:00 | |
| rurban: yes | |||
| Coke | perl's odd numbering scheme doesn't look so crazy now, does it? =-) | ||
| allison | rurban: I expect that's how most external users will handle it, no matter what we call the releases internally | 20:01 | |
| pmichaud | Coke: this is exactly what chromatic has been saying, except that chromatic called the 'special' releases "milestone releases" and the other releases "stable releases" | ||
| Coke | pmichaud: I did not get the impression that his only difference was naming. | ||
| allison | pmichaud: yep, like I said, our external documents are consistent aside from naming | ||
| Coke | I got the impression that he saw no reason to discourage, say, 1.1 from going into prod. | ||
| pmichaud | Coke: "Parrot currently follows a monthly cycle; we produce a new stable release of | ||
| Parrot on the third Tuesday of each month. This will continue into the | |||
| forseeable future. | |||
| (from suppor_policy.pod) | |||
| However, we will concentrate our efforts to produce two milestone releases each | 20:02 | ||
| NotFound | Coke: that was before we mentioned the problem with language developers and packegers | ||
| pmichaud | year, one in January and one on July." | ||
| allison | Coke: btw, chromatic did entirely agree with me on not porting bug/security fixes back to the monthly releases | ||
| so, we all agree there are fundamental differences between the regular monthly releases and the January/July releases | 20:03 | ||
| Coke | *sigh* work beckons. | ||
|
20:03
Coke left
|
|||
| allison | we have been running too long on this | 20:03 | |
| rurban | s/we produce a new stable release (of.*each month)/we produce a new release \\1/g | 20:04 | |
| NotFound | We can take a cuantum physics approach and call such releases 'charm' or such | ||
| allison | at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter | ||
| I'm happy with the compromise we worked out | |||
| NotFound | Words free of connotations | ||
| Infinoid | Hmm. I still think that provided we get the dependency information right between parrot and the HLLs, the user won't have to care which version gets installed because the right thing will happen automatically | ||
| The only reason why I originally brought this up is because I want a docs.parrot.org/parrot/latest/ or docs.parrot.org/parrot/stable/ or *anything* I can link to without having to change it every time we release | 20:05 | ||
| allison | Infinoid: that's unlikely to happen before 3.0, | ||
| it would limit the options for further development of Parrot | |||
| pmichaud | allison: with the compromise that's been worked out, what are the canonical terms for the 'special' and 'monthly' releases? | 20:06 | |
| NotFound | Infinoid: Ideally each language and module must have an x.y or later, but I don't expect such and ideal world. | ||
| allison | pmichaud: the compromise was mainly about version numbers, I suspect the special/monthly terms are what's still not at consensus | 20:07 | |
| pmichaud | allison: agreed; I was kind of asking for a decision as opposed to a report :-) | ||
| or at least something we can use in the interim to update the existing support_policy.pod to try to reduce some of the confusion. | 20:08 | ||
| allison | the decision is still stable/development, because I haven't heard anything clearer | ||
| pmichaud | okay, so Jan+Jul releases are "stable release", other releases are "development releases" | ||
| I can live with that. | |||
| allison | pmichaud: aye | ||
| Infinoid | Should the website docs always link to the most recent stable, or the most recent (whatever) release? | ||
| pmichaud | I agree that people will get confused by 1.3 not stable, 1.4 stable, 1.5 not stable, 1.6 not stable, etc.... but it's not really that big an issue. | 20:09 | |
| allison | Infinoid: it should have two links, one to stable one to devel | ||
| (similar to the Perl download page) | |||
| particle1 | i'd really to see 1.6 as stable, if 2.6 and 3.6 are also stable | ||
| allison | pmichaud: I think so too, but I also think they'll just end up following 1.0, 2.0, etc | ||
| Infinoid | allison: Ok. But where should users go by default? I need something to bounce the old pod2html pages from parrotcode.org to | ||
| rurban | I've tried a diff at nopaste.snit.ch/15762 | ||
| Infinoid | And to link from www.parrot.org/dev, etc. | ||
| allison | Infinoid: those pages are going away | 20:10 | |
| particle1 | as far as naming is concerned, consistency is more important than logic. | ||
| allison | Infinoid: change the text and link them to www.parrot.org/downloads | ||
| pmichaud barrages particle with an infinite number of water balloons. | |||
| Infinoid | Should I not add bounces for them, then? This is a good portion of my list of parrotcode.org links to make parrot.org handle | 20:11 | |
| allison | sorry, download, not downloads | ||
| pmichaud | it would not bother me to go 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, ... | ||
| i.e., to skip from .3 to .6 | |||
| allison | Infinoid: ah, you're talking about aliases on the new site, yes, those are good | ||
| Infinoid: was /dev a direct link to the tarball? | 20:12 | ||
| Infinoid | allison: I don't mind getting rid of those old links... they're all pretty disorganized. but now I'm wondering exactly what my task should be :) | ||
| particle1 | or 1.0, 1.3, 1.4... | ||
| rurban | or better skip 1.1 and 1.2 and go directly to 1.4 for april | ||
| pmichaud | somehow the jump from 1.3 to 1.6 bothers me less than a skip from 1.0 to 1.4 | ||
| particle1 | april is 1.3 | ||
| rurban | oops 1.3 | ||
| pmichaud | or 1.3 | ||
| allison | Infinoid: yes, making redirects for the old pages is good, we have a lot of Google traffic for them and it would be a shame to lose that traffic | ||
| pmichaud | if we go 1.0 to 1.3, then people will ask "what happened to 1.1 and 1.2?" (more) | ||
| Infinoid | allison: Sorry, I was just talking about www.parrotcode.org/cage-cleaners/guide.html, www.parrotcode.org/faq/, www.parrotcode.org/glossary.html, www.parrotcode.org/docs/, not the tarball. | ||
| pmichaud | if we go 1.3 to 1.6, then we can say "it's a stable release, so it gets the .6" | ||
| (I think this came up on the mailing list already also :-) | 20:13 | ||
| rurban | agreed | ||
| particle1 | pmichaud: 1.0 is a stable release, that's two months late :) | ||
| pmichaud | particle1: not at all, it's exactly when we said it would be :-) | ||
| allison | Infinoid: let's carry the website questions to #parrot | 20:14 | |
| on version numbers, there is no perfect answer | |||
| pmichaud | it simplifies things slightly if we can refer to .0 and .6 releases as always being stable releases. | ||
| allison | whatever we pick, we'll have to explain | ||
| another factor is that the half-yearly stable releases won't continue after 4.0 | 20:15 | ||
| pmichaud | I think it's easier to explain the jump from .3 to .6 than it is to explain that 1.4 is a stable release. | ||
| allison | so, we're really only talking about 3 special half-yearly releases | ||
| pmichaud | allison: I can conceive that we might stick with half-yearly stable releases after 4.0. | ||
| allison | it doesn't matter so much if they're consistent, because it's not a long-term pattern | ||
| pmichaud: maybe, but then we might not even have 3.6 | 20:16 | ||
| pmichaud | I wouldn't want to speculate too much about that far in the future, or let it be too much of a driver for our present decisions | ||
| so if it's easier to say "always .0 and .6 for now", we should do that. | |||
| NotFound | Someone said: "In the long term, all dead" | ||
| pmichaud | NotFound: Keynes | ||
| allison | it's easiest to say "January and July" | ||
| pmichaud | well, that's what I've been generally doing, yes. | 20:17 | |
| particle1 | enero x julio | ||
| pmichaud | maybe I can do that with the docs. | ||
| allison | and "whatever version number happens to fall in January or July | ||
| particle1 | er, y | ||
| numbers are already localized. | |||
| allison | (with a special exception for 1.0, which isn't January) | ||
| pmichaud | surely it's January somewhere in the world, like timezones? ;-P | ||
| allison | but on going into the future it's Jan/Jul | ||
| pmichaud: :) | |||
| pmichaud | I'll see if I can update support_policy.pod with the new information. | 20:18 | |
| allison | pmichaud: okay, thanks! | 20:19 | |
| any other questions before we wrap up for the week? | 20:20 | ||
| pmichaud | I'm wrapped. | ||
| Util | Earlier, I asked for extra eyes on a not-yet-ticketed problem. | ||
| The ticket is TT#398, and the relevant eyes are most probably pmichaud and/or cotto's. | |||
| NotFound | Who pays the beers? | ||
| allison | that's a wrap everybody, thanks! | 20:21 | |
| rurban | yes, I want to rename sun4 to sparc | ||
| But we can do this in 1.6 also | |||
| Util moves to #parrot | 20:22 | ||
|
20:22
allison left,
Util left,
rurban left,
Infinoid left,
NotFound left
20:25
particle1 left,
pmichaud left
20:30
masak left
20:32
PacoLinux left
21:25
rdice joined
22:03
Whiteknight joined
|
|||