- 3.40 release debrief
- 3.41 the suprise bugfix release
- 3.45 the next proper release
- what shall we put in?
- what shall we push back?
- Rough release date?
- Briefly what would we like to see beyond 3.45
- Tidying up the 'red' (the new bugs and features in Mantis)
- New Logo
- a credits page on the wiki? with bios?
*** ericthefish changes topic to "Support Incident Tracker (GPL) - http://sitracker.sf.net/ || v3.40 is current || Release meeting in progress! Agenda: http://sitracker.sf.net/Meeting20081203 || Don't flood, use a paste service: http://sit.pastebin.com/" <ericthefish> the first item is 3.40 release debrief <ericthefish> I just wanted to chat briefly about 3.40, we found a few bugs rather unexpectedly... <ericthefish> oh hang on, i think kieran is here *** xerosis has joined #sit <ericthefish> yay, hi xerosis <xerosis> morning all <Tomse> morning xerosis :-) <ericthefish> ok, was just about to chat about 3.40 and the bugs we found <ericthefish> i was bit dissapointed with the number of bugs found after release, always expect a few, but this time i really did a lot of testing beforehand <Legoman> A belated "Hi" everyone, I had to step out for a bit. I'm thinking of testing SiT with a Server 2008 AD setup so that might be interesting <ericthefish> i wonder if theres anything more we can do for QC to stop the bugs being found /after/ the release <ericthefish> a longer beta period perhaps <xerosis> I did consider a checklist of sorts, but there's almost too many things to test <Stonekeeper> (hi xerosis) <xerosis> and the beta doesn't seem to be getting used much <ericthefish> no thats always a problem, we tell people not to run the beta in a 'live' situation which puts people off using it completely <Stonekeeper> regression/unit tests are great, although they will slow the development process. <xerosis> it should help once we start using more functionsin that respect, more shared code <ericthefish> we could write unit tests for those <ericthefish> but a lot of the bugs tend to fall outside what those kind of tests would find, unless we have mega-thorough unit test <ericthefish> like for example the one where the close incident link was wrong <ericthefish> we'd need a test for every single link in the whole app to catch ones like that <xerosis> perhaps something pairing changed files against features? <xerosis> so we just test the files that have changed? <ericthefish> maybe <ericthefish> would a longer beta help? <xerosis> most of the bugs only arise in production it seem <xerosis> s <ericthefish> I think we should factor in unit testing as part of using more shared code in the future <ericthefish> when we write these functions we should also write a test for them perhaps <Tomse> My plan with the 3.40 release was to walk through all menues to find places where there was translations missing, so through there a few bugs were found <ericthefish> yeah that could well find a few <Tomse> my point is if you make a freeze at one point, then I'll go through it to check everything <xerosis> a more formalised test period as part of development seems needed <ericthefish> yeah, we possibly didn't leave the freeze long enough for 3.40 <sitbot> New news from wiki: Meeting20081203 <Stonekeeper> i'm sure that there are unit frameworks around for php. If you want something automated for pretend web client interaction, then i could know something up in mechanizer. <Tomse> also you are quite fast to repair the bugs, so I felt it necessary to update to the SVN to be able to keep up :-) <ericthefish> when we come to discuss the roadmap for 3.45 we should think about that <Stonekeeper> *knock <ericthefish> :) go on Stonekeeper <Stonekeeper> ok, we'll take that either offline or at the end of the meeting? <Stonekeeper> oh, you mean, go on talk about it? <ericthefish> hehe, ok, that could be useful <Stonekeeper> mechanizer is a library for python that allows you to programmatically control web pages. brb, door <ericthefish> well I don't want to make too much work for people, but that sort of thing does sound useful <ericthefish> ok, i know i'm perhaps rushing things, but is that enough talking about 3.40 ? <xerosis> can't decide it all now, we have stuff to look at <ericthefish> i think the feeling was, that we just need to test more ourselves before release, a longer beta won't help <Stonekeeper> back <ericthefish> am I right with that? <Tomse> yes.. you are right <xerosis> yep, more real testing rather than longer betas <ericthefish> ok <ericthefish> next, the 3.41 that nobody expected... <ericthefish> I'm probably about 60% though merging in the bugfixes that we did since 3.40 <ericthefish> I hope that all the major ones from 3.40 are now discovered, though it's very possible that nicdev will report some more very shortly <ericthefish> with this in mind I think it will probably be tomorrow at the earliest for the 3.41 release <xerosis> it would make sense to try and catch any he finds today and put them in 3.41 <ericthefish> of course, that needs testing as well, and rushing it out might not be the best thing to do <xerosis> especially with the mail <ericthefish> it's easy to think the changes have been minor but thats not really the case, there have been a ton of commits since 3.40 <Stonekeeper> yeah, sory about that :P <ericthefish> hehe <ericthefish> is it worth holding back 3.41 a few days for testing, or is it better to get it out there? <Stonekeeper> can i just say something, that's related to bugs, from the perspective of a new developer? <ericthefish> sure <ericthefish> Stonekeeper: the floor is yours <Stonekeeper> ok, we all know docs always lag behind. That's just the nature of the beast. But when you first start developing, it would be great to have design docs etc about the structure of the project. Without it, it's easy to assume or deduce things incorrectly and as such, that inevitably leads to bugs. <ericthefish> yeah, you're very right there <Stonekeeper> if there are already design docs, and i was just unaware of them, i'll go get my coat. <ericthefish> no, there are virtually none <ericthefish> we've traditionally implemented ideas very fast, completely bypassing the design stage <xerosis> partly because we're redeisgning it for this release I suppose <ericthefish> it's been more of a stepwise refinement model of development, something is tried one release and then removed or modified for the next <ericthefish> we're still feeling our way as to what people need from SiT <Stonekeeper> indeed. like i said, it's the nature of the beast <ericthefish> we have some rough idea about what we'd like to implement.. but i wouldn't call that design docs <Stonekeeper> ok, I'll give you an example <Stonekeeper> when i create a new contact, what does that REALLY impact? <Stonekeeper> is there code that assumes certain data will be there? <Stonekeeper> in some other part of the project? <ericthefish> yes quite probably, and no, theres no way (currently) to know that in advance (without reading through all the source code) <CIA-43> sitracker: kieran_hogg * r4343 /trunk/includes/functions.inc.php: make $fsdelim use the constant DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR <ericthefish> who's coding during the meeting! tut ;) <Stonekeeper> indeed. and this is time consuming. <ericthefish> well, we have the wiki which is a great tool for collaborative documention... <xerosis> once we plan out the design, I think it will be easy to turn this into docs <Stonekeeper> i really do think the project would benefit from some design docs. Even if it's just a diagram explaining how the different parts/concepts fit together <ericthefish> I agree totally <Stonekeeper> and i honestly dont think it'd take _that_ long, but you may well be fending off bugs at the bypass <Stonekeeper> as it were <ericthefish> Stonekeeper: do you think you could draft up a wiki page with some headings/titles things that need documenting and we can all have a go at padding it out into something useful <Stonekeeper> sure thing <ericthefish> shall we aim to get something there for 3.45 release, or is that a bit ambitious? <Stonekeeper> well, i can't see why we can't get something there <xerosis> we should have a fair idea by that point <ericthefish> ok, sounds like a plan <ericthefish> next item? <ericthefish> 3.45 the next proper release <Stonekeeper> imho, the best way forward is to break down the project into logical sections. Someone should be responsible for documenting that section. Or is that not a good idea? <Stonekeeper> oops sorry <ericthefish> sorry... carry on <Stonekeeper> no i was just saying that if you don't nail down who does what, you come away thinking "yeah, that should happen" but nobody actually does it <ericthefish> yeah we can do that, there are some unoffical sections already.. e.g. ldap would probably be your department <Stonekeeper> indeed <Stonekeeper> a big one is database structure, and what each field means <ericthefish> there are probably going to be some sections that it's hard to get docs for, but i'm sure some badgering on here will produce the goods <xerosis> I want to go through that to find old crap this release anyway, so we can do that <ericthefish> good point <xerosis> (the DB that is) <Stonekeeper> ok, so as an action, I'll go through my ldap stuff, document it and tidy up any code. <xerosis> then shame us into doing our sections :) <ericthefish> We now have pretty much every function with inline comments showing parameters and purpose etc. <ericthefish> we should probably have a similar section for each page, pages have parameters but it's not always easy to know what they are or what they're fot <ericthefish> *for <ericthefish> any more on that before I move on? <Stonekeeper> indeed. i found this out when trying to add contacts <Stonekeeper> no more to add <ericthefish> 3.45 the next proper release <ericthefish> first, what are our goals for this release <xerosis> IMAP + structure + code tidy IMO <ericthefish> LDAP? you mean? <xerosis> yeah sorry <xerosis> the LDAP has taken the lameness out of a release with no features <ericthefish> yeah, we originally had said "Focus: Code review and general tidy up" <Stonekeeper> heh <xerosis> I think we need a good structure to base future work on <ericthefish> but that didn't really sell it to people <xerosis> features are kinda 'hacked' on as it is <ericthefish> yeah, what I don't want to do though is pull the codebase apart so much it delays a release for a long time <ericthefish> I'd rather work on making a solid base incrementally <ericthefish> which I know is a tiny bit of a contradiction, but I think doable <xerosis> that's fine, but I think the whole plan needs doing at the start and the work incrementally <ericthefish> agreed <Tomse> as an addition - all texts should be in strings (no more hardcoded texts) <ericthefish> yes absolutely, we shouldn't allow any more hardcoded strings to get added <ericthefish> we're pretty close now to 100% translatable I think, Tomse might say different however.. <Tomse> hehe.. I keep finding several places <ericthefish> i think the main things left are the strings that get inserted into the database <xerosis> yep <ericthefish> we should probably arrange another meeting to discuss archtecture rather than do that now <xerosis> yep <ericthefish> but yes, a solid plan of what we should work on needs doing before we start work <xerosis> or do it on the wiki <Tomse> uhh. translations are put in a table instead of a flat file..that also popped into my mind recently <ericthefish> into the database you mean? <Tomse> potatoes/potahtoes :-) table = database <ericthefish> got ya <Tomse> hehe <ericthefish> interesting idea <xerosis> speed might be an issue <xerosis> you'd need a lookup per string <ericthefish> I think I'd rather not do that, because we want to translate the setup page for example which runs before a database connection is established <Tomse> good argument <ericthefish> we could make the translate.php better/easier though, it's kind of struggling under the weight of the number of keys at the moment <xerosis> yeah it needs a bit of love <ericthefish> we have a rather poor wiki page http://sitracker.sourceforge.net/Architecture, we should all have a bash at expanding this page into a plan <Stonekeeper> defaults in the db schema need looking at too <ericthefish> possibly, but we shouldn't be relying on the database to provide those really <Stonekeeper> then remove them :) <ericthefish> we can review that though, I'm sure there are some bad mistakes <ericthefish> yeah, that could be an option <ericthefish> I think the defaults we've used so far are there to stop things breaking, rather than to actually provide a sensible default <Stonekeeper> database defaults actually imply business logic <ericthefish> e.g. using 0 instead of a useful ID <ericthefish> there might be opportunities to improve there, we'd have to take that case by case I'm not sure what they might be off hand <ericthefish> certainly a full review of what columns we use and why they are defined as they are will be useful, that can come as part of documenting them <Tomse> just doing an insert here.. during setup/reconfigure, could it be possible to remove the example product/contact/contract/site etc ? <ericthefish> :-) I'm sure we could do that, can you do a bug report for it? <Tomse> no problem :-) <ericthefish> next topic now? <xerosis> yep <Stonekeeper> oh wait <Stonekeeper> ah, nm. I'll talk about it some other time <ericthefish> :) ok <ericthefish> this monster of a URL is the list of things we've currently targetted for 3.45 <ericthefish> http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/search.php?project_id=1&sticky_issues=1&target_version=3.45&sortby=last_updated&dir=DESC&hide_status_id=90 <ericthefish> the ones I'm particularly interested in us discussing are the red ones (new) <ericthefish> can we confirm those or deal with them <ericthefish> @bug269 <ericthefish> @bug 269 <sitbot> Bug 269 - kieran - new - open <sitbot> Mime decoding not up to scratch - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=269 <ericthefish> (fussy thing) <ericthefish> that one needs us to find a decent mime decode class, or else write one, which seems to be no easy task <xerosis> will try and have a look at a better class but it's not that we hacenven't tried <ericthefish> is it feasable for 3.45? <ericthefish> i know we havent' discussed a release date yet <xerosis> I want to /try/ so it can be targetted <ericthefish> ok, can you confirm that one then <Tomse> talking about mime, ericthefish and I talked about some deprecated functions you use for the mime handling (had an error with a .jpg file) when php5 is used <ericthefish> yeah the function that determines the mime type of a file <ericthefish> unfortunately it seems php doesn't have such a function any more, it's in PEAR now I think <xerosis> I think we just need to supress that error, no other way <ericthefish> @bug 196 <sitbot> Bug 196 - ivan - new - open <sitbot> We should use set_include_path.inc.php instead of modifying php.ini - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=196 <xerosis> yep, need this for the .deb process to be easier <xerosis> and install in general <ericthefish> I think it was Tomse that made a good point about this one, we mustn't overwrite the set_include_path.inc.php file during upgrades <ericthefish> I want to make the setup page create this file if it doesn't exist <ericthefish> and the .deb can do the same, so in future we shouldn't need to ship the file <xerosis> could have a -dist file? <ericthefish> yeah, i guess thats the way to do it <ericthefish> assigned that to myself, I'll do that one <ericthefish> are we all agreed that not modifying php.ini is a good thing? <xerosis> yep, the current de script works for most, but not all <xerosis> *deb <ericthefish> i think thats the main red's that are targetted for 3.45, the others are no brainers, just need confirming really <ericthefish> ok, the new bugs that aren't targetted, do we want to include any of these <Tomse> i can sign that (sorry had a phonecall) <ericthefish> not going to link, the url is craaAazzzy, but you can use the filter drop down in Mantis <ericthefish> @bug 279 <sitbot> Bug 279 - nicdev - new - open <sitbot> Creating a new user from the add-incident page returns back to wrong page - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=279 <ericthefish> @bug 278 <sitbot> Bug 278 - nicdev - new - open <sitbot> Finding contracts when adding incidents does not find "Pan, Peter" - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=278 <ericthefish> I'll try and get those two into 3.41 <xerosis> @bug 273 <sitbot> Bug 273 - micoots - new - open <sitbot> "View Incoming" to view in HTML (ie. view URLs as URLs) - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=273 <xerosis> @bug 273 <sitbot> Bug 273 - micoots - new - open <sitbot> "View Incoming" to view in HTML (ie. view URLs as URLs) - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=273 <xerosis> @bug 274 <sitbot> Bug 274 - micoots - new - open <sitbot> Date sorting Incoming Email (Holding) Queue - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=274 <xerosis> both doable for 3.45 <ericthefish> 273 yes, not sure if 274 is as easy as it looks <xerosis> and most of the i18n ones <xerosis> actually, the page code is pretty hard as I remember <xerosis> it's like 4 queues stuck in oone <xerosis> maybe rewrite for 3.50 <ericthefish> target 273 and 274 for 3.45, if it's too hard we can bump it <ericthefish> @240 <ericthefish> @bug 240 <sitbot> Bug 240 - ivan - new - open <sitbot> Changing the product assigned to a contract breaks the contract - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=240 <ericthefish> that one needs looking at since it's a crash <ericthefish> not sure if it's still a problem <ericthefish> @bug 270 <sitbot> Bug 270 - gdavidvlk - new - open <sitbot> Accented charactrers trunk inbound email body - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=270 <ericthefish> i presume this one is dependent on a new mime class? <xerosis> I would have thought so <ericthefish> ok <sitbot> New news from bugs: 0000196: We should use set_include_path.inc.php instead of modifying php.ini || 0000280: in reconfigure - option to remove the example data <ericthefish> any more to do on those? or shall we move to looking at the new features? <Tomse> no objection.. lets look at the goodies <ericthefish> ok, you can use the mantis filter "new feature requests" <Stonekeeper> re: bug 274, what about using a view? <xerosis> that would be the plan, but the code sucks <xerosis> it's not actually a list per se, it's hacked together <ericthefish> that page needs a complete rewrite really <Stonekeeper> i meant a db view <ericthefish> yeah items in the list come from different tables at the moment and yeah it's a total hack <ericthefish> but we could make it so much better and a db view might well help <xerosis> I suspect it would be tricky but if you want to give it a try <xerosis> might be easier to rewrite the page though <xerosis> it's unecessarily complex <ericthefish> yeah it's the way it grew over time and different developers worked on it, i hate looking at it now * xerosis actually vomits <xerosis> on to features? <ericthefish> i think that might be more of a 3.50 job though rewriting that <ericthefish> features yes <ericthefish> @bug 280 <sitbot> Bug 280 - Tomse - new - open <sitbot> in reconfigure - option to remove the example data - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=280 <ericthefish> I presume Tomse will be keen to get this one in ;) <Tomse> that would be nice.. I tried once and gave up hehe <ericthefish> assigned that to me <Tomse> contacts bound to contracts bound to sites that is bound to contacts again <Tomse> or similar :-) * ericthefish 's head explodes <ericthefish> what do you mean? <Stonekeeper> nono, it's HEAD ASPLODE <ericthefish> ;) <Tomse> to be able to manually delete the example data, you need to find the one data that is the end.. you cannot delete a site because it's bound to a contract etc.. <ericthefish> ah yeah <ericthefish> deleting is something on our list, but targetted way down I think *** SubWolf has joined #sit <ericthefish> @bug 46 <Stonekeeper> use cascade in database? <sitbot> Bug 46 - kieran - new - open <sitbot> Hardware Data - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=46 <ericthefish> Stonekeeper: it might be more complex than that, coz quite often you don't just want data to 'go missing' <ericthefish> you need to know that it once existed <Stonekeeper> ericthefish: ah indeed <Stonekeeper> triggers <ericthefish> yeah <Tomse> perhaps an option to fill out example data (what later can be disabled again then) ? <Tomse> that* <ericthefish> i don't really think we should add the example data by default, that should perhaps be an extra checkbox at setup time <xerosis> might be easier to decide to include the data or not in the first place <xerosis> snap <ericthefish> the only reason we put there (back in v3.21) was because at that time there was no, as in none at all, documentation <ericthefish> and we felt without some data in there people would be mega confused, as indeed they quite often still are ;) <ericthefish> @bug 46 <sitbot> Bug 46 - kieran - new - open <sitbot> Hardware Data - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=46 <Stonekeeper> on this topic, I'd like to add an ldap section to installer <Stonekeeper> bah, too late <ericthefish> xerosis: is that one done now with the inventory <xerosis> yep :) <Tomse> Stonekeeper, yea.. too late.. so that'll be kicked to 3.50 <Stonekeeper> Tomse: no i mean, it's to do with default data * Stonekeeper stands in the corner again <ericthefish> Stonekeeper: yeah, that would be great, i should hang fire a little while until I've bashed the new config page into shape <Stonekeeper> great stuff <ericthefish> can anybody see any more new features in mantis that we should be targetting this time? <xerosis> I thinnk we have more than enough <ericthefish> @bug 275 <sitbot> Bug 275 - Tomse - new - open <sitbot> imap choice of sub-folder - http://sit.salfordsoftware.co.uk/mantis/view.php?id=275 <xerosis> that could be done in a few minutes <ericthefish> well volunteered ;) <Tomse> it's a simple thing, but has a big meaning <xerosis> damn <xerosis> could do that today even <ericthefish> right, i think that might be it... <ericthefish> last call <Tomse> a feature request that isn't in mantis (wanted to wait after this meeting) <ericthefish> mm? <Tomse> Inventory which we talked about yesterday <ericthefish> right yeah <Tomse> I just put it in the air, so you atleast could think about it <ericthefish> my feeling is that might be too much for 3.45, but we could certainly make a start planning it <ericthefish> xerosis: what do you think? you know more about the current inventory <xerosis> almost certainly 3.50+ I'm afraid <xerosis> only 3 weeks left, it'll take much longer <Stonekeeper> Have you guys though about interfacing sit with an external inventory program such as OCS? <ericthefish> i've never seen an external inventory program personally <ericthefish> but yeah I'd be willing to think about interfacing with anything if it was useful <Stonekeeper> external to sit i mean <ericthefish> yeah, never seen one, I don't do inventories myself ;) <Stonekeeper> well ocs has an agent you put on comps and it reports in the details <xerosis> could be worth looking at that, a plugin might be easier then recoding the wheel <Stonekeeper> for big deployments, nobody is going to be willing to type the data in themselves <Tomse> I took a look on OCS once.. that requires alot.. <Stonekeeper> well, not really. It's just like the auth framework we discussed yesterday. It's just a mapping issue <ericthefish> can we discuss this later, not dismissing it, I agree we need to do something <Stonekeeper> hmm maybe i'm being too simplistic <Tomse> and it seems like it best functions under a large corporation, rather than having an external support centre <Stonekeeper> oh ok. i see. is the target audience of sit independant support companies? <Tomse> Stonekeeper, I think they are both support companies and corporations.. <Stonekeeper> ok, well like eric said, we'll talk after about it :) <ericthefish> we don't have a target audience as such, anybody and anybody who would find a support tool useful I guess <ericthefish> next topic now, unless anybody objects... <ericthefish> gonna skip the "functions - how to split up" discussion, I think we can talk about it later in more depth <Tomse> staying with the feature requests.. thinking Windows networks here..and now with LDAP, when going to the mainpage, some kind of user validation that happens automatically.. could this be an option ? <ericthefish> ok sorry <Tomse> sorry.. was in the middle of writing when you started to change subj <xerosis> I think any new features need to be considered for 3.50+, 3.45 ispretty full now <ericthefish> Tomse: do you mean a transparent/seamless sign-in? <Stonekeeper> Tomse: NTLM? >.< We'll talk later about that <Tomse> correct.. <Tomse> and lets talk about it later.. <ericthefish> yeah, we can talk later about it after thats ok * Stonekeeper mutters about microsoft re-inventing the wheel and making things windows only <ericthefish> ok rough release date <ericthefish> We've been trying aim to release more or less every 8 weeks <ericthefish> 3.40 was 21st November, so that would mean towards the end of January for a release for 3.45 <xerosis> Friday 23rd? <ericthefish> ok for me <xerosis> can always adjust it like we did with .30 <ericthefish> ok <ericthefish> see http://sitracker.sourceforge.net/ReleaseCycle <ericthefish> Tomse has hinted that we need to give more freeze time for translations, is that right Tomse? <Tomse> that would be nice <Tomse> that means "stop fixing while i'm testing" <ericthefish> how long do you think is reasonable? <Tomse> with full concentration I would say 2 days, but that is being rather optimistic <sitbot> New news from bugs: 0000227: Hardcoded text "SiT! has been upgraded" || 0000226: Hardcoded language --> You are using a pre-release version || 0000219: Hardcoded text in : Triggers --> Add trigger --> template pull down menu <sitbot> New news from wiki: Meeting20081203 <ericthefish> a week? 10 days? <Tomse> a week might be a good choice <ericthefish> so string freeze on friday 16 January <ericthefish> feature freeze should probably be a week before that <ericthefish> 9th january <xerosis> propsoe to skip post 3.45 item? <ericthefish> if we find we need to release a beta, i think we should push the release date back appropriately <ericthefish> rather than try and squeeze a beta into that timeframe <ericthefish> yeah, this meeting has been long enough <Tomse> be considderate of christmas and your own time to fix/add <ericthefish> next item "Tidying up the 'red' (the new bugs and features in Mantis) " <ericthefish> we've done a few already, but it would be helpful if everybody could take time today to read the red ones and either confirm them or ask for feedback or close as dupe whatever <xerosis> will try and get rid of all red items today/this week <ericthefish> we have loads in the database and it's not helpful really <ericthefish> next item: the new logo <ericthefish> http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/751/sit3ub7.jpg <ericthefish> just wanted to ask formally whether everybody is happy with (1) on that image, if so we'll start using it from 3.45 i reckon <Tomse> 1 is my first choice <xerosis> I agree <ericthefish> last chance to say you hate it... <ericthefish> ok we'll go with that, thanks <ericthefish> next: "credits" <ericthefish> I'd like to try and get a bit more exposure for you lovely people who help with SiT *** Tomse is now known as MrAnonymous <ericthefish> It'd be nice to have a page on the wiki that has a short bio of each of the team members, maybe with a photo or an avatar or something? *** MrAnonymous is now known as Tomse <ericthefish> lol <ericthefish> I don't wanna reveal anything private of course, and as little or as much as people want will go up there, but it'd be nice just to introduce ourselves to SiT users so we don't seem like mysterious strangers <ericthefish> anybody love/hate that idea? <xerosis> agree with this, I like being nosy about other projects' developers <Tomse> well some of the first things that happens when new ppl enter here and get to talking is to ask where ppl come from <xerosis> maybe a template for a profile page could be drawn up <Tomse> so why not make that public ? <ericthefish> ok I'll draw something up, I won't expect everybody to reveal everything though, promise <Tomse> i have nothing against it <xerosis> good stuff <ericthefish> well that brings us to the end of the agenda, but before everybody rushes off for a drink... <Tomse> too late <Tomse> allready drinking tea here <Stonekeeper> :) <ericthefish> I just wanna say that SiT has been ranked in the top 100 projects on sourceforge for a full week now <Stonekeeper> :) <ericthefish> thats the first time we've been and stayed so high, and it's thanks to you guys <Stonekeeper> afk <ericthefish> we're second in the "Ticketing systems" category, thats right after bugtracker.... no mean feat <xerosis> :) <ericthefish> so well done everybody <xerosis> thanks all <ericthefish> ok, that wraps it up, unless anybody wants to shoe something in <Tomse> I'd like to thank you all aswell.. <xerosis> I'm good, time for lunch * ericthefish is starved <Tomse> oh oh <Tomse> just a sec <ericthefish> ok <Tomse> it took me a long time to search for a support system.. <Tomse> it was per mere incident that I stumbled across this <Tomse> don't know if some meta tags in the homepage would be better the seach machines crawlers <Tomse> for the* <ericthefish> yeah I'm not sure if sourceforge gets spidered very well <ericthefish> we need to get more people to link to us I think <ericthefish> maybe we could create some buttons / a banner with our new logo <ericthefish> ok, thanks guys, you can go to the loo now, meeting over ;) <Tomse> hehe thanks *** ChanServ sets mode: +o ericthefish <Tomse> but you won't get rid of me that easily