Our biweekly meetings
John Arbash Meinel
john at arbash-meinel.com
Fri Sep 9 17:28:12 UTC 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 09/09/2011 05:50 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Apologies for the delayed response. Note that we ended up not meeting on
> Wednesday because it was only Jelmer and myself. ;) Maybe the thing to do is
> to suspend the meetings until we have a clear agenda for them moving forward.
> Note that I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing! While there are some
> big ticket items that really need addressing (e.g. the quilt story), for me,
> UDD is a huge success. Despite the warts, I personally can't imagine working
> any other way.
Yeah, I was sprinting and Martin was sick. We could do it next week if
you want, though.
> On Sep 06, 2011, at 03:12 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> The main thing I appreciated about the meetings was hearing what other people
>> had done towards UDD.
> A common theme these days: let's celebrate your successes!
> One possible change in format would be to do a lightning round, and just go
> around the "table" with each person identifying one or two items they've run
> into, fixed, hacked on, or have a wild idea about. I would certainly love to
> hear about what you guys are excited about that might be coming soon. If
> there was some new feature, I'd be happy to run a dev branch for a bit to try
> things out.
> A great example is the branch status messages that bzr now gives. The
> original status lines needed a bit of tweaking, but now that it's landed, I am
> absolutely ecstatic about the feature. JAM, you nailed it!
>> I think a part of this is also that UDD as a project doesn't really have
>> releases - and no really visible changelog. So despite a lot of things
>> getting done, we normally wouldn't hear about them.
> Agreed. The lightning round might do the trick there.
>> Another thing that was occasionally useful was discussions about particular
>> problems, like what to do about the project branch and packaging branch for a
>> native package. The mailing list seems to work reasonably well for that sort
>> of discussion too though, when it happens to come up.
> What do you think about this: after the lightening round, we can have one or
> two brief discussions on any particular design or implementation point for
> which the higher bandwidth would be useful?
> Mostly, I want to cut out the boring parts of the meeting, or anything we can
> do just as well over email. Let's make the meetings fun and interesting to
> participate in, and maybe we'd get more than just us chiming in. :)
I think it can be a really good way to help *me* keep an ear out for
what the current warts of the system are, and what would really help
real-world use. Especially stuff like the informational notes. It can be
easy to get stuck on some major thing (quilt merging), and not get
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ubuntu-distributed-devel