Version 1
Created by seanrogers on Nov 5, 2009 8:09 PM. Last modified by seanrogers on Nov 5, 2009 8:11 PM.
    10:00pmserogersHi Jay, hi everyone
    10:00pmamitevhi Sean
    10:01pmbalunasjamitev: ah yes - that is cool
    10:02pmbalunasjserogers: lets give people a few minutes to join the mtg
    10:02pmserogersYep, no problem
    10:02pmbalunasjserogers: btw - I was thinking next time you could just post the meeting info and links to the docs for review on the forums
    10:03pmserogersOh OK, I hadn't thought of that
    10:03pmbalunasjserogers: yeah - np - what every can be public should imo.
    10:03pmserogersOK
    10:04pmMarauder|awayîòîøåë (autoaway - õðàíèòåëü ýêðàíà) incompatible encoding
    10:04pmMarauder is now known as Marauder|away.
    10:05pmpmuir joined the chat room.
    10:05pmamitevrf meeting today?
    10:05pmbalunasjamitev: we have our bi-weekly doc meeting today.
    10:05pmbalunasjamitev: serogers is our doc lead and is based in Australia
    10:09pmamitevcool!
    10:13pmbalunasjok serogers lets get going - I think there was a mix up
    10:14pmMarauder|away is now known as Marauder.
    10:14pmbalunasjlets start with the release confirmation.
    10:14pmserogersOK. There isn't too much to discuss I guess.
    10:14pmbalunasjserogers: ok
    10:14pmserogersOK, I just wanted to ask if there were any firm dates for releases
    10:14pmbalunasjserogers: firm dates for 4.0 no - it is too far out atm.
    10:15pmbalunasjserogers: for 3.3.3 we want to release Beta end of Nov
    10:15pmbalunasj3.3.3 GA by end of year or first thing after the new year
    10:16pmbalunasjserogers: I think you will have limited changes for 3.3.3 - correct?
    10:16pmserogersOK. When I first joined the project you mentioned March next year as a possible GA for 4.0, is this looking less likely now?
    10:16pmserogersYes, limited changes for 3.3.3
    10:17pmbalunasjserogers: yes unfortunately - that was an early estimate and some issues have come up, such as the 3.3.3 release, an enterprise release that we can talk about offline, and
    10:18pmbalunasjissues with JSF 2 that needed to be worked out - primarily client library issues.
    10:18pmserogersOK, no problem.
    10:19pmMarauder is now known as ilya_shaikovsky.
    10:19pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: Hi Ilya
    10:19pmilya_shaikovskybalunasj, Hi!
    10:19pmabelevich joined the chat room.
    10:19pmabelevichhi all
    10:19pmbalunasjHi abelevich
    10:20pmserogersHi
    10:20pmbalunasjJust updated Sean on release plans for 3.3.3 and 4.0
    10:20pmbalunasjserogers: do you want to move on to the new publican?
    10:20pmserogersSure
    10:21pmbalunasjI have not had time to try the doc build instructions
    10:21pmserogersNo problem. The new Publican has been released this week and works a bit differently to the old one
    10:21pmserogersFirst of all, there is a version for Windows, so that will make building more widely accessible
    10:22pmbalunasjserogers: that is good
    10:22pmserogersAlso it no longer uses "make", which you previously expressed some concern with, balunasj
    10:23pmbalunasjserogers: yes - I would like it to be buildable using maven if possible as well.
    10:23pmbalunasjserogers: this would match the other projects like seam and tools
    10:23pmserogersYes. I've added the ability since the last meeting to make it possible to build with maven
    10:24pmbalunasjI would also like to see a build set up in Hudson for doc - http://hudson.qa.jboss.com/hudson/view/RichFaces/
    10:24pmbalunasjserogers:
    10:24pmserogersIn fact the doc I sent out for review was built with maven
    10:24pmbalunasjI'm sure the doc group has some other builds running there so hopefully should be able to follow suit
    10:25pmserogersOK, I'll look into it and if I have any issues I'll let you know
    10:25pmbalunasjserogers: yup - remember seeing it in the wiki - has that changed with the new publican?
    10:26pmbalunasjserogers: thanks - when you get it building we'll make sure it is in the RichFaces view and publish publically too.
    10:26pmbalunasjserogers: in hudson I mean
    10:26pmserogersThe docs are in docbook format, which can be built by either Publican or Maven separately
    10:27pmserogersSo building with Maven doesn't require Publican at all
    10:27pmbalunasjserogers: ok that was the bit I was missing
    10:27pmserogersIt should be the same with the new version of Publican too
    10:27pmbalunasjserogers: excellent that should make creating the hudson build easy
    10:28pmserogersYes. It should be possible to eventually set Hudson up to use Publican.
    10:28pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky abelevich - either of you have a chance to try the doc build?
    10:28pmserogersCurrently their are downsides to each approach
    10:28pmserogerstheir = there
    10:29pmbalunasjserogers: what are the differences?
    10:29pmilya_shaikovskyilya_shaikovsky, min.. talking to nick by phone
    10:29pmilya_shaikovskybalunasj, ^
    10:29pmserogersThey use different branding, mostly
    10:29pmilya_shaikovskyhe will be in a few minutes
    10:29pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: ok
    10:29pmserogersBut we'll be working to get the JBoss community branding into Publican
    10:30pmbalunasjserogers: ok good - I think that is a good idea
    10:30pmilya_shaikovskyI have looked to the draft Sean sent yesterday only by now
    10:31pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: yeah - I just looked through it as well.
    10:31pmbalunasjserogers: no sure what kind of feedback you are looking with the component guide
    10:31pmserogersNothing too in depth
    10:31pmserogersIt is mostly just showing progress
    10:31pmbalunasjserogers: I would recommend keeping it to structure and direction
    10:32pmilya_shaikovskyI have some minor points on current draft
    10:33pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: what about general format and direction?  do you like it?
    10:33pmilya_shaikovskyAt first - still need to send you feedback on the component groups..
    10:33pmilya_shaikovskyexamples: half of the components placed in resource handling should not be there as I think and loadStyle should not be placed in layout and appearances.. and so on
    10:33pmserogersOK
    10:34pmilya_shaikovskybalunasj, In general I'm happy with the structure
    10:34pmilya_shaikovskyAnd the second point
    10:34pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: yes that was my general comment as well.
    10:34pmwesleyhales joined the chat room.
    10:34pmilya_shaikovskyI looked  through calendar section for example
    10:34pmbalunasjserogers: I'm assuming things like cross doc links to the dev guide are not in yet - but will be.
    10:35pmbalunasjserogers: such as referencing dev guide queue section
    10:35pmilya_shaikovskyand think that it requests more actual samples because e.g. question like dataModel definition is really wide and not too simple for users.. but it described in one paragraph just in words as I see
    10:36pmserogersbalunasj: yes, the cross-referencing isn't all there yet
    10:36pmilya_shaikovskyAt least basic definitions samples.. WDYT?
    10:36pmserogersYes, I agree
    10:37pmserogersThere is still a lot to be added and I definitely want to expand on some points more
    10:37pmserogersand also include more examples
    10:37pmilya_shaikovskysure.. just wanted to ask
    10:37pmilya_shaikovskyAnd b.t.w. just noticed.. you declaring for example - positioning of the calendar popup
    10:37pmbalunasjserogers: overall thought I like the direction - I think there is still a lot to be added, and adjusted, but good.
    10:38pmilya_shaikovskyit's one more point which will be standartized for all the compoennt like it - combobox, tooltip, menu..
    10:38pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: agree - that is another thing to standardize
    10:38pmilya_shaikovskyso it's sounds like additional common description which could be probably moved out of every such component description
    10:38pmilya_shaikovskytyping slowly than you
    10:39pmserogersilya_shaikovsky: OK, I was thinking some standardizing on those points would probably be in the plans
    10:39pmbalunasjserogers: that brings up a good point as well - if you see areas or features that might make sense standardized or changes please let us know.
    10:39pmserogersOK
    10:40pmbalunasjserogers: a fresh set of eyes is always good
    10:40pmserogers:0
    10:40pmserogers
    10:40pmbalunasjserogers: you said there was not much to cover today - do you want to talk about any thing else?
    10:40pmserogersI'll continue to work off the existing docs then make necessary changes as the plans get finalized
    10:41pmbalunasjserogers: good idea - also please add a jira for 4.0 doc hudson build
    10:41pmserogersI think we've covered everything I had on the agenda. Is there anything else anyone would like to dicsuss?
    10:41pmserogersOK, will add the Jira
    10:41pmilya_shaikovskyserogers, so it seems like all for now from me.. so let me write you letter on the component groups in TOC so we could talk more closelly. also Nick will revise it
    10:41pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: was just writing that
    10:41pmilya_shaikovsky
    10:41pmserogersOK, that sounds great
    10:41pmilya_shaikovskyfaster typing this time
    10:41pmilya_shaikovsky
    10:42pmbalunasjalright good - serogers can go to bed earlier, I can get garbage out to curb, and ilya and abelevich can have lunch
    10:42pmserogers
    10:42pmabelevich^)
    10:43pmserogersOK, thanks everyone
    10:43pmbalunasjthank you!
    10:43pmilya_shaikovskythanks!
    10:43pmserogersGoodnight
    2379 Views Categories: Tags: