Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Developer Meeting 16/02/2010 00:00 UTC ======
+**Attendees:** clsk, J_K9, Neeraj
+**Note:** All timestamps in UTC+1
+This meeting's agenda is available [[development:communication:agendas:100216_weekly|here]].
+----
+[01:08] <J_K9> Hello clsk
+[01:08] <clsk> hello Max
+[01:08] <J_K9> Sorry for the delay!
+[01:08] <J_K9> I'm not sure if anyone else is joining us
+[01:09] <J_K9> How is everything going?
+[01:09] <clsk> it's ok.. was just wondering if anyone was coming
+[01:09] <clsk> good
+[01:09] <clsk> you?
+[01:09] <J_K9> Yeah, pretty good thanks!
+[01:09] <J_K9> I haven't heard anything from Shilpa or Neeraj. Did Shilpa follow up our conversation with you?
+[01:10] <clsk> not really
+[01:10] <clsk> From what I understood she said she'd work on finishing up the code sometime this week
+[01:10] <J_K9> How does that fit in with the work you're doing? Is yours almost done?
+[01:10] <clsk> If she doesn't have time, then I might have to pick it up
+[01:11] *** Neeraj has joined #mira
+[01:11] <clsk> pretty much
+[01:11] <J_K9> Hello Neeraj :)
+[01:11] <J_K9> How much is left, Alan?
+[01:11] <clsk> I have to finish a couple other things before I can't move on any further without it
+[01:11] <Neeraj> Hi All
+[01:12] <clsk> well I'm the GUI for the workplace summary widget is basically done
+[01:12] <J_K9> So you need Shilpa's module to continue, is that right?
+[01:12] <clsk> then I have to finish up some small stuff on the GUI for the chat
+[01:12] <clsk> and then right now I'm working on a new protocol message for synching workplace members
+[01:13] <J_K9> Why is the new protocol needed?
+[01:13] <clsk> not a new protocol
+[01:13] <clsk> just a new protocol message
+[01:14] <clsk> it's needed so that when you connect to the server and get the workplace information... you get all the workplace members as well
+[01:14] <clsk> the exact way we synch utilities
+[01:14] <J_K9> Ah, ok
+[01:14] <clsk> it's pretty much the exact same message, just with user information
+[01:14] <clsk> username + online/offline status
+[01:14] <J_K9> Right
+[01:15] <J_K9> So how much time do you need to finish those three tasks, do you think? And what is left for 0.1 after that?
+[01:16] <clsk> I'm hoping this should all be finished this week. By Friday I think. Unless I hit a bug like the one I found last week
+[01:16] <clsk> I fixed that btw.
+[01:17] <J_K9> Which was that, the login bug or the seg fault?
+[01:17] <J_K9> (i.e. the one that crashed upon upload of a file in the Files Utility)
+[01:20] <clsk> neither of those. The one having to do with a GUI-related object created in a thread different from the GUI thread
+[01:20] <J_K9> Oh, the one you were working on at the time
+[01:21] <clsk> yes
+[01:22] <J_K9> Is there any chance we could close those two other bugs? Neeraj, could you possibly look into those, if you're not working on anything else (I presume you finished working on the client-side network protocols parsers)?
+[01:23] <Neeraj> Yeah I can look into it
+[01:23] <clsk> the seg fault I'd have to look at
+[01:23] <Neeraj> But as I arrived late I don't know what you guys are talking about
+[01:23] <clsk> I have a good idea of where the bug could be. It's in my TODO list
+[01:23] <Neeraj> whats the other one?
+[01:25] <J_K9> The other one occurs when you log in with false credentials through the Client GUI. After that, any login attempts (even if the authentication details are correct) will be denied
+[01:25] <J_K9> Neeraj: Could you possibly test this bug, confirm that you've replicated it and then try to fix it?
+[01:26] <clsk> The server will reply with "E Need to login first"
+[01:26] <Neeraj> is it GUI side issue or serverside?
+[01:26] <clsk> it doesn't realize that you're sending a L message
+[01:26] <clsk> server-side
+[01:26] <Neeraj> ok then its fine. I have not workin QT thats why I was concerned.
+[01:26] <Neeraj> This one I can look into it surely.
+[01:27] <J_K9> That would be great. If you'd like, please start a new thread on the mailing list so we can follow your progress in fixing the bug.
+[01:27] <clsk> Neeraj if you find a fix, just send me a patch against trunk and we'll push it to trunk
+[01:28] <Neeraj> I understood what the issue is .... are there any more details about the bug anywhere?
+[01:28] <Neeraj> yeah sure I will send you the patch I remember reading about it in the bzr tutorial.
+[01:29] <J_K9> Yes Neeraj, that would be great. :)
+[01:30] <Neeraj> Is it ok if I revert back with my status on this bug by Wednesday this time?
+[01:31] <Neeraj> Mostly I won't be able to work on Mira atall :(
+[01:31] <Neeraj> sorry
+[01:31] <J_K9> Neeraj: Where, on IRC? It's much easier if you send an email to the mailing list.
+[01:31] <clsk> hm Neeraj: a place to start is TcpConnection's handle_read
+[01:31] <Neeraj> Mostly I won't be able to work on Mira tomorrow atall :(
+[01:31] <J_K9> That's ok - will you be free after Wednesday?
+[01:31] <clsk> from looking at the code I'm pretty sure that's where the issue is
+[01:32] <Neeraj> yeah by email
+[01:33] <Neeraj> Thanks Alan for pointing out the starting point.
+[01:34] <J_K9> Are there any other points either of you would like to discuss? I notice that the agenda hasn't changed - the only thing left to discuss is the InstallBuilder.
+[01:35] <Neeraj> I had one
+[01:35] <J_K9> What is it, Neeraj?
+[01:36] <Neeraj> Encryption of password from Client side.
+[01:36] <Neeraj> Alan should I go ahead and implement 3 way commnication for so that the salt is shared between the client and server?
+[01:37] <Neeraj> or we want to handle it differently?
+[01:45] <clsk> you can go ahead and do that
+[01:45] <Neeraj> sure but we should change that soon.
+[01:46] <clsk> just make sure you document any additions to the protocol on the wiki
+[01:47] <Neeraj> sure
+[01:47] <J_K9> Is there anything else you would like to discuss
+[01:48] <Neeraj> Bug is higher priority then the password encryption right?
+[01:48] <J_K9> What about the installer - who is going to work on those (a Windows- and Linux-based installer for Mira Client, a Linux-based installer for Mira Server)?
+[01:48] <J_K9> Neeraj: Yes, the bug is more important.
+[01:48] <clsk> probably so, yes
+[01:49] <J_K9> Thurston did some preliminary work on the Windows-based installer for Mira Client a while back, but I'm not sure if he still has the configuration file for it. Either way, I'm not sure if he still has the time to work on it.
+[01:50] <clsk> There's a branch he's been working on
+[01:50] <J_K9> When I last checked, though, he hadn't updated it in a few weeks?
+[01:51] <clsk> probably so
+[01:53] <J_K9> Hmm... Well, what I will do is I will send him an email off-list to find out what is happening with that, as we'll need it as soon as the code for 0.1 is ready and it has been tested.
+[01:54] <J_K9> Are there any topics you would like to discuss? I'm sorry if I seem a little rushed tonight, I just have to wake up early tomorrow so I'm not going to get much sleep otherwise :)
+[01:54] <clsk> hmm .. I don't have anything
+[01:54] <clsk> We just need to set up a test date
+[01:54] <Neeraj> nothing at my end.
+[01:54] <clsk> probably a week or two away from today
+[01:55] <J_K9> clsk: Shall we send a test date round to the mailing list as soon as the final code has been added?
+[01:55] <J_K9> I think two weeks is probably the most reasonable, considering the work left to be done by you and Shilpa and the bug that Neeraj will try to fix
+[01:56] <clsk> yep
+[01:56] <J_K9> Ok, great. :)
+[01:56] <J_K9> In that case, let's call it a night :) Thanks to both of you for joining, and all the best!

Mira Groupware

Differences