MozillaWiki

Labs/Jetpack/Weekly Meeting/2011-10-4: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Labs/Jetpack/Weekly Meeting/2011-10-4 (view source)

Revision as of 21:38, 4 October 2011

11,406 bytes added ,  4 October 2011
no edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
* SDK updates
* SDK updates
** [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Add-on%20SDK&bug_status=__open__&order=bug_id&target_milestone=1.2 1.2-targeted bugs]
** [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Add-on%20SDK&bug_status=__open__&order=bug_id&target_milestone=1.2 1.2-targeted bugs]
** Myk: final call for feedback on [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla-labs-jetpack/e0RkE4zW9ew/nOiE4IIa4yEJ three week offset proposal]
* London Workshop report!
* London Workshop report!
* Revisit Will's call for better release-notes process?
* Revisit Will's call for better release-notes process?
* Roundtable
* Roundtable
** Myk: final call for feedback on [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla-labs-jetpack/e0RkE4zW9ew/nOiE4IIa4yEJ three week offset proposal]
** Myk: final call for feedback on [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla-labs-jetpack/e0RkE4zW9ew/6uzkw-wkmtYJ minVersion/maxVersion proposal]
** Myk: final call for feedback on [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla-labs-jetpack/e0RkE4zW9ew/6uzkw-wkmtYJ minVersion/maxVersion proposal]
** gozala: For some of our users review takes painfully long time, can we help ? [https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/mozilla-labs-jetpack/zqT8-gNCjjI]
** gozala: For some of our users review takes painfully long time, can we help ? [https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/mozilla-labs-jetpack/zqT8-gNCjjI]
*** KWierso: And apparently the repack removed the addons from the review queue so they had to start at the bottom?
** dcm: Alex got a pagemod add-on working on mobile! [https://github.com/ochameau/hackernews-mob-mod On Github]
** dcm: Alex got a pagemod add-on working on mobile! [https://github.com/ochameau/hackernews-mob-mod On Github]
** dcm: Alex also started work on l10n stuff - [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=691782 bug] & [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Jetpack/Add-on_SDK_Localization_API_and_Service Feature page]
** dcm: Alex also started work on l10n stuff - [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=691782 bug] & [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Jetpack/Add-on_SDK_Localization_API_and_Service Feature page]
** gozala: Proper platform bug fixes instead of workarounds
** jeff: websockets usage in SDK add-ons


= Attendees =
= Attendees =


* myk
* mossop
* dcm
* kwierso
* canuckistani
* dbuc
* arron
* warner
* gozala
* ochameau
* zer0
* gabor
* will
= Minutes =
== Repack Post-Mortem ==
* -> dcm to post proposal to addons blog and forum about repacks in the future
* first part is short term to only repack addons hosted on builder
* because we have sources for addons on builder
* it's hard to repack XPIs without access to sources
* long term ideas of creating source package that can be used by repacker
* and landing stuff into firefox
* proposal and announcement on forum later today
* you can see proposal in advance via etherpad
* dbuc: what about case of someone using the builder and then switches to SDK?
* dcm: as previously discussed, we should have flag that identifies addon as coming from builder
* dbuc: but should we send them an email each time we try to do a repack, saying we couldn't repack?
* dcm: good question, something for me to talk to fligtar about
* myk: doesn't matter whether or not it came from builder originally, question is whether it comes from builder now or not
* warner: yes, it's about whether or not we have source for it
* -> dcm to follow up with fligtar about it
== FlightDeck Updates ==
* "push to AMO" feature pushed to production
* there was a problem because of some IT issue
* IT will correct the issue
* team is defining Q4 goals
* was going to land code completion, but have decided against it
* will now focus on making repack process better
* myk: still Q1 2012 for builder 1.0?
* dbuc: yes, early Q1, but should have technical stuff wrapped up this quarter
* early Q1 will be about developing a marketing plan, etc.
* warner: code completion changing in ACE?
* dbuc: they're going to gut package system, and code completion tried to package system, so it sounds like it'll change
* gozala: was at jsconf, talked to cloud nine folks, sounds like they plan to ship code completion very soon
* apparently already on their branch
* dbuc: sure; but there are other reasons to delay, like repacks, finishing 1.0
== SDK Updates ==


* two extant bugs targeted to 1.2


= Minutes =
* first bug about hotkeys regression
* gozala: could be fixed by fix for another bug, need feedback from myk on that
* myk: that looks like a new feature; this is a regression in 1.1; is there a short-term fix for the bug that doesn't require landing a new feature?
* myk: or perhaps other mitigating steps, like notifying authors of broken addons and adding a release note
* gozala: i think fix is simple, might be low-risk enough to get into 1.2
* myk: per request for feedback, allowing only non-printing characters seems reasonable
* -> dbuc to find out which addons were affected
* -> gozala to submit patch tomorrow
 
* ochameau: second bug is simple, has patch
* myk: patch has review, can you land it today? afterward i will cherry-pick to stabilization branch
* -> alex to land today
* -> myk to cherry pick to stabilization branch for 1.2
 
* myk: last call for feedback on three week offset proposal
* (general assent)
* alex: i would like to see a graphic to understand when releases are happening
* myk: i put a graphic into the [[Jetpack/Development_Process||development process page]]
* i will update it with new dates and a simpler color scheme after finalizing the proposal
 
== Bug Update ==
 
* wes: two bugs need followups from warner, {{bug|685378}} and {{bug|663480}}
 
* warner: (something i didn't catch about first bug)
* warner: need to think about second bug
* -> warner to think about second bug
 
== London Workshop Report ==
 
* jeff: it was a mixed success
* a bunch of people showed up
* well-received
* got good feedback
* not as many people as we wanted
* hacker newsgroup with free beer had just recently scheduled event for that night
* hundreds of people were there instead
* our event lacked beer
* we got about 40 people, including some who were addon developers and had used jetpack
* warner: i think about 50 rsvp, ended the event with 25, some attenuation over course of evening
* jeff: i think more like 65 rsvp plus 5 from college
 
* jeff: original format was three tracks, but we ended up doing it in one room
* venue issues, like not enough power strips
* material was generally good and well-received
* i have meeting with dan to collate media: video, pictures
* plan to do a blog post today
* have some ideas on how to improve it in the future
* there are a lot of social meetups with geeks
* competing with them is hard
* and it happened to be great weather
* we were supposed to have drinks, but there was a misunderstanding with college
* in the end we couldn't bring in outside catering and drinks
* next time we could do it in london office of sufficient size
* rethinking sf event, thinking of making it smaller, with just a couple of presenters, and hosted in sf office
* i'll draft up proposal of what sf event should look like
 
* one of the lessons was event was heavy in terms of people needing to travel
* in the future we should plan to make them more lightweight
* warner: we didn't do labs with people going through exercises, we should experiment with that
* jeff: yes, have ideas about doing sessions in morning and hack day in afternoon
* warner: we could experiment with employees who don't know much about addons
 
* matteo: i talked after jsfconf with dietrich...
* more than one workshop was a coneference
* because we lacked labs, it was noninteractive
* not clear the level of the workshop
* some people are new to addons or have just used them
* others are web developers and don't know anything about them
* perhaps have two different tracks; one for people who are new and a more advanced one
* warner: jeff, i'll get you my slides
 
* myk: any feedback on APIs or features?
* matteo: one guy who created addon for thunderbird asked if we are going to support other XUL apps
* jeff: folks asked when we're going to work on missing pieces, like prefs or places apis, but they aren't scheduled
 
* dbuc: did builder work?
* jeff: any problems we had were related to speed of network
* had some wifi issues, routed around them by using phone for internet
* warner: wifi was out for middle part; only four attendees had ac power
 
* jeff: we have minimum system requirements, the venue didn't meet them
* the devengage team is getting a developer events manager
* that person should be putting together boilerplate stuff with technical requirements, we can take them to venue and make sure they're met
 
== Better Release Notes Process ==
 
* dcm: two weeks ago will asked for a process for letting him know about new features in release
* warner: recently i've been setting the target milestone of bugs i close
* myK: there's also the relnote keyword you can set on bugs that would benefit from a release note
* mossop: yes, if you set target milestone and then relnote keyword it's a simple bugzilla query
* dcm: think about it more, send out a message
* kwierso: make sure to identify relnote with cherry picked changes
 
* will: i don't want to make it hard, can troll through github history
* i'm also interested in knowing about the future instead of just the past
* want to know what's in 1.3, 1.4 before they happen
* partly out of interest, partly to prepare for documenting changes
* assume others want to know as well
* we used to have a wiki page of stuff we expect to show up for a release
 
* dcm: it's harder with train model
* will: that's ok, it's still good to know intention
* jeff: it would be useful for me, too
* dcm: one other option is what eddy has done with e10s documentation via etherpad
* i asked him to link to etherpad in feature page
* as feature page is canonical repository
* that's always an option
 
* myk: can happen, just requires effort from somebody
* dcm: don't think it's worth jumping off the train
* dcm: if everyone is keeping a good status update
 
* irakli: one thing that is helpful is to write good description of what pull request does
* you could get data fram pull request descriptions
* warner: same thing applies to merge commits
* myk: but pull requests and merge commits are about stuff in the past
* irakli: actually pull requests are the future, for those not yet closed
 
* myk: also there's smedberg's status tool for engineers on mossop's team
* dcm: pull requests and smedberg's tool might be the solution here, let's keep thinking
 
== Roundtable ==
 
* myk: final call for feedback on minVersion/maxVersion proposal
* (none)
 
* irakli: user on forum is frustrated with review process and versioning
* not sure what to do, but i think we should do something about it
* review took longer than the SDK took to release a new version
* jeff: got comments on that at jsconf as well
* folks had an update in review queue, then we repacked their old version
* and no one had looked at their new version, which used 1.1
* that's between us and AMO
* dcm: hmm, not sure, something to talk to fligtar, jorge
* -> dcm to talk to fligtar
 
* irakli: also it's important to respond to the user
* -> jeff to get back to that user
 
* irakli: another item is platform bug fixes and feature additions
* while doing work for e10s and cleaning up module loader code i found a couple issues we're working around
* one is that we don't write to standard output because python can't handle it
* so we write to a file instead
* alex has a patch for it
* another is that there is no way to exit process by passing exit code
* so we work around that as well by writing to file
* since we have platform devs, is that something we can delegate to them and fix on platform side?
* mossop: yes, if we have things that need fixing in the platform, we have engs on the team to do that
* mossop: either speak to them directly or pass the bugs to me
* irakli: i can create bugs and cc: our platform devs
* -> irakli to do so
 
* dcm: alex got a pagemod addon working on mobile; it's on github, check it out!
* alex also started work on l10n stuff, there's a branch on which you can follow the work
* alex: we should start talking with gandalf and transifex team about maintaining online tool
* the more i think about it, i think we might not support online tool in first step
* so we should allow translation manually
* the first step will be to just allow translation in addon
* then improve it by connecting it to addon tool which will be ready later on
* because i just realized this tool is not maintained by anyone
* perhaps transifex team, which has contract with mozilla
* but will take some time to be ready
* dcm: sounds good to me, will talk to gandalf more about the online tool
 
* jeff: over the weekend i got email from 1password asking for advice on implementing websockets in addon
* seems like the only way to do it is in a page worker
* mozwebsocket as implemented requires dom to run, can't just require("chrome") and access it
* is that something we should address on platform
* irakli: that's one of the things i meant about limitations of using certain apis without creating a hidden window
* i think those things would be better fixed on the platform side
* (lots of discussion about medium term plan to load main addon code in a real web page environment)
* (some discussion of short term ways to address issue)
MykMelez
canmove, Confirmed users
2,056

edits

Retrieved from "https://wiki.allizom.org/Special:MobileDiff/354660...354957"