Meeting 2012 11 23

Attendance:

• Chair - Andrew (Admin SB, Data 2nd)
• Content - Barak

SUMMARY:

• Backporting the current trunk changes to 6.0 branch is approved by content
• SF Update sounds reasonable
• Agenda Item#2 unable to discuss due to lack of Code Team presence.

Log

• [14:46] <@Chair[Andrew]> *Bangs gavel* Welcome to our non-quorum Board of Directors Meeting. It's Friday, 2:46pm (PST).
• [14:46] <@Chair[Andrew]> Our Agenda is:
• [14:46] <@Chair[Andrew]> 1.) Policy on backporting fixes from trunk to 6.0.0
• [14:46] <@Chair[Andrew]> 2.) State of play on what's been narrowed down by the Code team for 6.x
• [14:46] <@Chair[Andrew]> 3.) Upgrade of sf.net to their new forge system
• [14:47] <@Chair[Andrew]> Item 1 - That is a very good question. I went to town hacking apart the core data sets to bring them to the newest standards
• [14:48] <Content_SB[Barak> Ok, first, has the decision been made to do an incremental release on the 6.0 line?
• [14:48] <@Chair[Andrew]> Good question, and I believe there are fixes that would warrant it.
• [14:49] <@Chair[Andrew]> JIRA already has it set up, so I can only assume James intends to do at least a 6.00.1 release
• [14:49] <Content_SB[Barak> Second question was going to be, what would prevent us from doing a data only update if there is no need for a code update?
• [14:50] <Content_SB[Barak> Ok, that makes my second question there kinda moot, although we should decide how far we go with backporting and when we quit.
• [14:50] <@Chair[Andrew]> Not sure I understand the context
• [14:50] <@Chair[Andrew]> However, we stop supporting the 6.0 branch once the Data / Code makes keeping updates impractical
• [14:51] <@Chair[Andrew]> The only difference between trunk and 6.0 at this point is vast changes in the data and some code fixes
• [14:51] <@Chair[Andrew]> but no underlying code changes or data changes makes one non-compatible
• [14:52] <Content_SB[Barak> I'm for getting as many meaningfiul changes in as we can (meaning basically bringing non-standard sets up to standard).
• [14:52] <@Chair[Andrew]> Well that leads me to a tangent...
• [14:52] <@Chair[Andrew]> We have some sets I suspect aren't seeing any use
• [14:52] <Content_SB[Barak> I would say no new sources, no new additions to existing sources, only work to bring existing material up to current standards.
• [14:53] <@Chair[Andrew]> All trunk changes (Not sure if you see those) have been - massive overhaul of Pathfinder, 3e and 3.5e.
• [14:54] <@Chair[Andrew]> Then I have been pushing Alphas into d20ogl after reviewing them (Loads without errors, tags up to date, mechanics appear valid)
• [14:55] <@Chair[Andrew]> and in that mix, a few Pathfinder set fixes
• [14:55] <@Chair[Andrew]> I don't believe a single new source has been pushed into the trunk at this time.
• [14:56] <Content_SB[Barak> Ok. My take: 6.0 is out. Nothing new to go in. Maintenance/bug fix/standards work only (otherwise we could introduce more bugs requiring another release, etc.)
• [14:57] *** TiBook has quit IRC: Quit: This computer has gone to sleep
• [14:57] <@Chair[Andrew]> Fair enough. Though, we do have a small issue. Do we want to backport the alpha/d20ogl changes? (I've fixed a bunch of broken code in those sets)
• [14:58] <@Chair[Andrew]> i.e. sets that were graduated from alpha
• [14:59] <Content_SB[Barak> Out of curioosity, broken due to age/pcgen change, or broken/never worked>
• [15:01] <@Chair[Andrew]> bad code practices that never worked, changes from feats to abilities (still didn't work); basically really old that was never caught since our loader didn't complain till now (Love this newer loader much better at catching broken code).
• [15:01] <@Chair[Andrew]> i.e. choosers in auto granted abilities
• [15:01] <@Chair[Andrew]> missing MULT
• [15:02] <@Chair[Andrew]> or CHOOSE:NUMBER without any preapply
• [15:02] <@Chair[Andrew]> incorrect reference name
• [15:02] <@Chair[Andrew]> bad damage syntax
• [15:02] <@Chair[Andrew]> (1D8 vs. 1d8, or 1d8+1+1d6)
• [15:03] <@Chair[Andrew]> Over-all, a lot of things that didn't work, never worked, and just plain needed to be fixed.
• [15:05] <Content_SB[Barak> That all sounds worthwhile to backport.
• [15:06] <@Chair[Andrew]> Yeah, agreed.
• [15:07] <Content_SB[Barak> Ok, agenda item 2 seems will have to be skipped without James here.
• [15:08] <@Chair[Andrew]> Yeah, that is his scope
• [15:09] <@Chair[Andrew]> Item #3 - moving to the new Forge. It appears to be a benign upgrade. I don't see much use for us as we've migrated to our own site (wiki, tracker, etc)
• [15:09] <@Chair[Andrew]> But the SF people would like us to upgrade so they can retire the old system.
• [15:10] <Content_SB[Barak> Is that what it mostly is? Better support for users of a project?
• [15:10] <@Chair[Andrew]> As I understand it, more feature rich, better user experience, and upgraded functionality.
• [15:11] <@Chair[Andrew]> I'm all for the move
• [15:12] <Content_SB[Barak> As long as it's not going to force us to change our repository yet, I'm good with it.
• [15:12] <@Chair[Andrew]> nope
• [15:13] <@Chair[Andrew]> SVN vs. GIT is a separate discussion
• [15:13] <@Chair[Andrew]> and has nothing to do with this upgrade
• [15:15] <@Chair[Andrew]> unless you have any open items, I move to adjourn the bod meeting and then have a content meeting ;)
• [15:16] <Content_SB[Barak> I don't have anything further for the general BoD meeting.
• [15:16] <@Chair[Andrew]> *bangs gavel* BoD meeting adjourned.