Version 1
    10:58pmserogersHi Jay
    11:01pmbalunasjserogers write up an agenda for us
    11:02pmserogersShall we get started then?
    11:02pmbalunasjThe only thing I would add to that is making the plan and documents public
    11:02pmssilvert left the chat room. (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
    11:02pmbalunasjstatus on that I mean ^
    11:03pmbalunasjserogers let me ping Nick and Ilya
    11:03pmstansilvert left the chat room. (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
    11:04pmbalunasjI know they had feedback
    11:05pmbalunasjserogers: While they are joining lets discuss status of posting the doc plan publicly
    11:05pmserogersOK. One of the things I listed in the agenda was publishing process
    11:06pmserogersSo I wasn't sure of the best way to do that. Possibly I could build the docs then send them to you to upload somewhere?
    11:06pmserogersOh sorry, doc plan
    11:06pmbalunasjah - ic was not sure if that was the same thing
    11:06pmserogersI misread your post
    11:06pmbalunasjserogers: np - I want to talk about the build plan as well
    11:06pmbalunasjbut not at first
    11:07pmilya_shaikovsky joined the chat room.
    11:07pmbalunasjnick and Ilya may also have comments for the build
    11:07pmilya_shaikovskyHi All!
    11:07pmserogersOK. So is having the doc plan on the wiki OK, or did you want it more public?
    11:07pmserogersHi Ilya
    11:07pmbalunasjwiki is good - do you have a link?
    11:08pmbalunasjserogers: nevermind
    11:09pmbalunasjDo we have links to this from the 4.0 main page?
    11:09pmnbelaevski joined the chat room.
    11:10pmbalunasjnbelaevski: Hi
    11:10pmbalunasjThere is a doc sections at the bottom
    11:10pmserogersOK, I can do that
    11:11pmbalunasjserogers: awesome thanks
    11:11pmserogersOK, so let's discuss the feedback on the draft
    11:11pmserogersThanks again to everyone for commenting
    11:12pmserogersObviously it is still a very early draft
    11:12pmserogersI've already incorporated a lot of your comments back into it
    11:13pmbalunasjserogers: I think this was a good starting point though
    11:13pmserogersYes, I wanted to get things moving and get everyone comfortable
    11:14pmserogersSo with respect to the branding, that is you comment Jay about it being "enterprise"
    11:14pmserogersYou are correct, I wasn't really using it appropriately
    11:15pmserogersApparently we don't yet have a community branding that would be appropriate
    11:15pmserogersSo in the meantime I may just remove the branding, and try and get the RichFaces logo on there
    11:15pmbalunasjyes that may be part of the effort
    11:15pmbalunasjIf you take a look at how the seam project handles this it works well.
    11:16pmnbelaevski0 joined the chat room.
    11:16pmbalunasjThere is simply a different doc-book style that is applied to the docs
    11:16pmbalunasjone is very community based
    11:16pmbalunasjthe other adds all the legal stuff, and preface details
    11:16pmbalunasjand changes the style to match the enterprise stuff.
    11:17pmnbelaevski left the chat room. ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]")
    11:17pmserogersOK. We wanted to move to using Publican, so I'll try and reconcile that.
    11:17pmbalunasjserogers: yeah - I was reviewing the build instructions
    11:17pmbalunasjserogers: not crazy about "make"
    11:18pmserogersWhat do you mean?
    11:18pmbalunasjHow to build doc - requires make
    11:19pmserogersYes, is that a problem?
    11:20pmbalunasjIf you are using docbook we should be able to use the same approach as seam docs
    11:20pmbalunasjI'm not sure how many people will have make setup
    11:20pmbalunasjmany use ant and mvn though
    11:21pmbalunasjwhich is how seam build is done
    11:21pmrruss left the chat room. ("Leaving.")
    11:21pmserogersOK. I'm not familiar with the Seam docs, but I'll look into what we can do.
    11:22pmbalunasjserogers: I'm looking up someones name that could help you one min
    11:22pmbalunasjserogers: Joshua Wulf may be able to help out
    11:23pmbalunasjplus take a look here:
    11:23pmbalunasjit has information on building it as well.
    11:23pmbalunasjserogers: I think some of this comes back to my original concerns over publican
    11:24pmbalunasjserogers: But this must be overcome somehow - perhaps there are two ways to build docs - publican for enterprise and mvn/ant for community
    11:25pmserogersWe're developing a methodology for this currently. I'll find out some more about it.
    11:25pmbalunasjserogers: excellent thanks
    11:26pmbalunasjserogers: lets move on to the rest of the feedback then
    11:26pmserogersOK. I wasn't sure what you meant with your comments about the version number
    11:26pmserogersDo you want it to be 4.0.0 instead of just 4.0?
    11:27pmbalunasjserogers: I think this depends on whether this is a variable or something that you have to change manually
    11:27pmbalunasjserogers: If it is manual I think 4.0
    11:28pmserogersCurrently it is manual but I believe I can change it to a variable
    11:28pmbalunasjif it is a variable based on build information I think being specific to build is good
    11:28pmbalunasjserogers: yes I would recommend that
    11:28pmbalunasjserogers: that way everyone knows what version of the docs they are looking at
    11:28pmbalunasjALPHA1, BETA etc...
    11:28pmserogersNo problem
    11:30pmserogersSo about the preface. It is rather long, but it is a standard template that is put in there. Do you think I should just take it out?
    11:31pmbalunasjI think it is fine for enterprise docs, but not really for community.  Again I would ask who ever migrates Seam docs about how they apply the templdate
    11:32pmbalunasjThere may be an easy way to handle this.
    11:34pmserogersNow on to the actual content. For the installation instructions I mostly referred to those included with the Alpha1 download.
    11:34pmserogersHowever there were a few comments that bits needed changing. Can someone confirm the installation procedure?
    11:35pmbalunasjI think there are two parts
    11:35pmbalunasjWhat you have ( with updates )
    11:36pmbalunasjand how to adjust an existing maven project
    11:36pmbalunasjusing richfaces ( which we can assume since this is the migration guide
    11:37pmilya_shaikovskybalunasj, agree and I think Maven settings is most required from instalation point of view.. many guys asked why we listing libs instead of dependencies settings
    11:37pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: nbelaevski0 : any other comments in this area?
    11:37pmbalunasjserogers: We also need to list what libs/dependencies are no longer needed
    11:38pmbalunasjand can be removed
    11:38pmserogersOK. Where can I get these details from?
    11:41pmbalunasjsome are still TBD, but the basic maven changes should in the wiki ( at least the starting point )
    11:42pmbalunasjreally the comment at the bottom is more important
    11:42pmbalunasjwe need to get this updated
    11:42pmbalunasjIt is the changes needed in mvn artifact dep.
    11:43pmbalunasji.e. change version of these 3 to 4.0.0 and from 3.3.X
    11:43pmbalunasjremoved X libs
    11:43pmbalunasjadd X others
    11:43pmbalunasjwith the same XML
    11:43pmbalunasjI'll add a jira for this to be updated - unless ilya_shaikovsky knows where this info is already
    11:45pmilya_shaikovskyno there is no such place I'm afraid
    11:45pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky:   yeah this is important even for 3.3.X
    11:45pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky "how to include richfaces in your project using maven"
    11:46pmbalunasjI'll create a jira
    11:48pmserogersOK. I also wasn't sure what to do about your comment on the facelets, Jay
    11:48pmlfryc left the chat room. ("Leaving")
    11:48pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: - have not looked at gsg - for details
    11:49pmbalunasjserogers: In JSF 1.2 almost everyone used a project called facelets for a view layer
    11:49pmbalunasjIn JSF 2 this has become part of the spec and is called VDL - View Definition Language
    11:50pmbalunasjUsers migrating from JSF 1.2 --> JSF 2.0 can still use the older facelets
    11:50pmbalunasjbut I think there is a flag that needs to be set.
    11:50pmbalunasjwishing alex was here I think he knows
    11:50pmbalunasjthis also means that the facelets jar can be removed as a dep
    11:51pmbalunasjSo this needs to be addressed
    11:51pmbalunasjI would recommend adding a little info now and note it for details in the future.
    11:52pmbalunasjI think this is one the things you will notice when you work on a migration example
    11:52pmserogersOK. As I've listed in the agenda, maybe I need to work on the other docs for a while until more information becomes available for the Migration Guide
    11:52pmbalunasjOnce we are further along in development I think that will be a big help to you  ( and us )
    11:53pmbalunasjserogers: Yes I agreed - I think for now getting builds, skeletons and placeholders in place is best
    11:53pmserogersJust one last thing on the Migration doc specifically:
    11:54pmbalunasjserogers: I still think it important to review/discuss
    11:54pmbalunasjin these meeting
    11:54pmserogersI agree we need to expand the section on the differences between JSF and RichFaces
    11:54pmserogersIs there any information I can look at on this?
    11:55pmbalunasjI think some of this belongs in the dev guide - like dynamic resources and queuing because they are not specific to migration.
    11:56pmbalunasjI would focus on what is needs to be changed and different from RF 3 --< RF4
    11:56pmilya_shaikovskyAll the features listed in Alex S page about RichFaces 4.x plans.. there is list of improvements RF will add to JSF
    11:57pmbalunasjin other words the migrations guide to talk about changes to how queueing behaves ( if it is different ).
    11:57pmbalunasjor skinning
    11:57pmbalunasjLeave the bulk of the items ilya_shaikovsky is pointing to the dev guide.
    11:57pmbalunasjilya_shaikovsky: nbelaevski0 : would you agree?
    11:57pmserogersI agree. I added that because I saw it on the planning page and assumed it was something that had changed
    11:58pmbalunasjserogers: sure - it is complex how these various things related
    11:58pmnbelaevski0balunasj: yes
    11:58pmbalunasjserogers: because it will be an update to both JSF and RF
    11:58pmserogersOK, I think I understand
    12:01ambalunasjserogers: anything else critical you wanted to cover in this meeting?
    12:01amserogersOK. So on the agenda what I mean by rolling releases is I think I'll change the doc plan so that instead of completing one book then moving to the next, I'll do drafts of each one, then go through them again, so we have a constant cycle of drafting and reviewing
    12:01amserogersHow does that sound?
    12:02ambalunasjserogers: I think that sounds good and it will also help with timing, because of the status of the project
    12:02amilya_shaikovskyyes, also sounds good for me
    12:02ambalunasjserogers: give you time to get skeletons and drafts in place to hit the ground running as the project becomes ready for you
    12:03amserogersFor the publishing process, I was thinking I would build the docs then send them to you to make available on the website. Is this OK?
    12:04ambalunasjserogers: I would recommend using hudson and builds there
    12:04ambalunasjserogers: This would let you have nightly builds of the docs that your can point to
    12:05ambalunasjserogers: For releases we'll need to discuss how/where the docs will be bundled in the distributions
    12:06ambalunasjI would like to see what ever drafts you have ready in the ALPHA2 release as we plan on having a fair amount of assembly completed
    12:07amserogersNo problem
    12:07ambalunasjserogers: please create jira for your various tasks discussed here and we'll talk again in a couple of weeks - I think you have a good start, and plan
    12:07amserogersLast on the agenda is the tlddoc for the API reference
    12:08amserogersI have a Jira to fix a bug there but I'm not sure how to edit it
    12:09ambalunasjserogers: sure
    12:11ambalunasjnbelaevski0: this is the changes in that one file that used absolute paths right?
    12:11ambalunasjnbelaevski0: I can look up the file one min
    12:12amnbelaevski0balunasj: yes
    12:13amnbelaevski0that's another issue
    12:13amnbelaevski0RF-8005 describes incorrect deployment
    12:13amnbelaevski0tld documentation with 3.3.2 version is deployed under 3.3.1 link
    12:13amserogersYes, I have fixed the other issue, it needs to be republished
    12:14amnbelaevski0balunasj: master.xml problem is covered in another issue
    12:14amnbelaevski0serogers: yes, republishing is necessary
    12:14ambalunasjnbelaevski0: ah yes - so this is something that IT needs to do then
    12:15amserogersHow does it get republished?
    12:15ambalunasjserogers: you would need to generate a document build from the 3.3.1.GA tag
    12:16ambalunasjserogers: and put it somewhere that IT can access ( I'm sure one of the other doc team memebers will know )
    12:16ambalunasjserogers: Then email helpdesk and as that they replace the existing 3.3.1.GA directory with the new one built
    12:16amserogersOK. I may have it written in my notes somewhere
    12:17ambalunasjserogers: n.b. this is not a huge priority we have already released 3.3.2
    12:17ambalunasjserogers: It still should be done - but save it for a time when you want to do some brain-dead work
    12:17amserogersOK. Well I guess that's it then
    12:17ambalunasjserogers: ok thanks sean
    12:17amserogersNo problem. Thanks everyone
    12:20amilya_shaikovskybalunasj, thanks Jay