Meeting 2014 12 05

PCGen Board of Director's Meeting

Attendees:

• Andrew
• Tom (Pre-meeting only)
• James
• Doug
• Stefan
• Mark

Summary:

• Arch Pre-discussion for Conversion concepts of the Formula Parser
• Arch Pre-discussion about GIT
• Release for 6.4.1RC1 schedule for release ASAP (Estimated late date was December 14th) gated by three Code bugs identified by James and a fourth potential.
  • James and Stefan will address code bugs
• Two New Sources status and release requested (Ultimate Campaign and Mythic Campaign), but can be Out of Cycle released and shall not gate the next release
• Move to GITHUB is pending the release of 6.4.1 and 6.5, and is on a tight schedule due to Andrew's School schedule.
• James inquired if we should have a repo for pregens to test the releases against.
• Andrew will place a Wiki stub for GITHUB information and policies per the PCGen Project

Raw Log

• [15:00] <@[Chair]Andrew> I've got 3pm local, we ready to begin?
• [15:00] <James[Code_SB]> sure
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> *Hammer gavel* Welcome all to the PCGen Board of Directors meeting. It is December 5th, 2014 (1500 PST).
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> Today's agenda: "Mixed meeting"
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> Call to order (Andrew) - 1 minute
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> Arch Projects - covering Formula Parser & FACT/FACTSET (Tom) - 15-30 minutes allotted
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> 6.4.1RC1 & 6.5.0 - Status [Mixed team report] (Andrew & James) - 10 minutes
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> GIT Migration Plans (James & Andrew) - 15 minutes
• [15:01] <@[Chair]Andrew> Open Forum (Any)
• [15:02] <@[Chair]Andrew> Tom's item will be covered briefly by James as Tom was scheduled incorrectly.
• [15:03] * @[Chair]Andrew passes talking stick to James
• [15:03] <James[Code_SB]> We have two projects which will be further explored in the 6.5 cycle - Formula Parser & FACT/FACTSET
• [15:04] <James[Code_SB]> They are in the discussion stages with prototypes of both having been produced earlier in the year
• [15:04] <James[Code_SB]> That's about all there is to say at this point
• [15:05] <James[Code_SB]> Any questions?
• [15:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> I'm good. I think we can move onto the Release status of 6.4.1RC1 and 6.5.0
• [15:06] <James[Code_SB]> sure
• [15:07] <James[Code_SB]> So, 6.50 can go out at any time we deem it suitable
• [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> Really the big question is do we want to clear 6.4.1 first?
• [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> For 6.4.1, I want to get the following fixed:
• [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> CODE-2771 - Java error on race change
• [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> CODE-2766 - SITUATION Skills not displaying as they should
• [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> CODE-2722 - PF - Minor Magic Rogue Talent cannot be picked
• [15:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> If possible, I'd like to get 6.4.1RC1 out then migrate to GITHUB for the 6.5 cycle.
• [15:09] <James[Code_SB]> yep that makes sense
• [15:10] <@[Chair]Andrew> What timeframe did you have for tackling those three issues?
• [15:10] <James[Code_SB]> Probably in the next week or so
• [15:10] <James[Code_SB]> So maybe aim at 6.4.1 RC1 for dec14?
• [15:11] <@[Chair]Andrew> Yeah, sounds perfect
• [15:11] <@[Chair]Andrew> means 6.4.1 for Dec 21st barring an issue
• [15:11] <James[Code_SB]> That's optimistic, but possible
• [15:13] <@[Chair]Andrew> I currently have no issues holding up the 6.4.1RC1 release. I'm reviewing Mark's last push to see if it needs to go into 6.4
• [15:13] *** mjmeans has joined #pcgen
• [15:13] <James[Code_SB]> ok, that's a good reason for optimism then :)
• [15:13] <@[Chair]Andrew> At this moment, Data has 169 issues resolved since the 6.4.0 release
• [15:13] <James[Code_SB]> Nice
• [15:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> We also have 11 OS issue resolve, and added 1 new source "Lords of Chaos"
• [15:14] <James[Code_SB]> Any chance of pulling in ultimate campaign? It seems a popular one, particularly for the traits
• [15:15] <@[Chair]Andrew> I haven't seen any recent work on it, and don't know if it's close to ready
• [15:15] <@[Chair]Andrew> I've been spending some free time on Mythic Adventures
• [15:16] <@[Chair]Andrew> I've been informed the Ultimate Campaign is almost complete
• [15:16] <Distant_Scholar> I could take a look at it [Ultimate Campaign], if no one else is assigned to it. I think I have the PDF around here somewhere.
• [15:17] <@[Chair]Andrew> We can definitely do a rush job on those two and see if we can get them in before the Dec 14th deadline
• [15:17] <@Zaister> Ultimate Campaign is mostly just traits
• [15:17] <James[Code_SB]> Hey Stefan
• [15:17] <@Zaister> good evening/morning
• [15:19] <James[Code_SB]> ok, so that's 6.4.1
• [15:19] <James[Code_SB]> I reckon we should then put out a 6.5.0 from svn before moving to git
• [15:19] <@[Chair]Andrew> Summarizing then - We plan to release 6.4.1RC1 on December 14th, and 6.4.1 on December 21st. 6.5.0 will be post move to GITHUB.
• [15:19] <James[Code_SB]> The reasoning being, it rules a line under the work in that repo
• [15:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> We can do a 6.5.0 from SVN if you'd like.
• [15:20] <James[Code_SB]> and gives us some time to iron out the kinks in the new repo under a less stressful timeline
• [15:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> Sounds reasonable to me.
• [15:20] <@Zaister> good idea
• [15:20] <James[Code_SB]> Cool
• [15:21] <@[Chair]Andrew> Which leads into the next agenda item:
• [15:21] <James[Code_SB]> So lets say 6.5.0 and git move in first half of Jan then
• [15:22] <@[Chair]Andrew> I was hoping github move sooner.
• [15:23] <@[Chair]Andrew> But that's the next agenda item to discuss :)
• [15:23] <James[Code_SB]> k
• [15:23] <@[Chair]Andrew> GIT Migration Plans
• [15:24] <@[Chair]Andrew> Floor is still yours James, since the majority of CI and automation is on your timeframe.
• [15:24] <James[Code_SB]> Right
• [15:25] <James[Code_SB]> Well on the design side, there has been some good discussion on naming etc and prefixes are sounding like a good idea
• [15:25] <James[Code_SB]> The early move on NewSources to git seems to have worked well
• [15:26] <James[Code_SB]> and the fork + feature branches model also seems to be working well there
• [15:26] <@[Chair]Andrew> *nods* agreed
• [15:26] <James[Code_SB]> So I think we have a good starting point for our usage of git there
• [15:27] <James[Code_SB]> but further discussion is welcome - this is a big change for the project and we want it to be one that encourages people to contribute
• [15:27] <@[Chair]Andrew> I'd definitely like the GITHUB migration sooner than later, for several reasons:
• [15:28] <James[Code_SB]> I think there are open questions about what we do with the old production release branches for instance
• [15:30] <@[Chair]Andrew> Hmm, okay reasons and then open questions
• [15:31] <@[Chair]Andrew> 1) Moving to GITHUB sooner allows our developers to transition faster.
• [15:31] <@[Chair]Andrew> 2) Depending on discussions with Tom, I'd like to at least splice in his eqvar sandbox into a feature branch to give us some working scope.
• [15:31] <@[Chair]Andrew> 3) My break time from school ends January 15th.
• [15:32] <@[Chair]Andrew> For the old production branches - for the SVN, we leave it available for historical access, but once 6.4.1 is out, write access should be disabled.
• [15:32] <mjmeans> sorry for breaking in... #3 is critical... the next opportunity is far in the future
• [15:33] <James[Code_SB]> Yes #3 is good to know
• [15:33] <@[Chair]Andrew> No worries, we're in open forum since this involves everyone in the project.
• [15:33] <James[Code_SB]> So that puts the pressure back on getting 6.4.1 out asap
• [15:34] <James[Code_SB]> To clear the way for 6.50 and git migration
• [15:34] <James[Code_SB]> Particularly as Christmas is going to mean people have other priorities
• [15:34] <@[Chair]Andrew> Since GIT will get all the history minus the production branches, it should be feasible to review the history if we need to look at an older production branch, but nothing should be too critical since we still have svn.
• [15:36] <@[Chair]Andrew> Well, I'm working on my final currently, just a few questions left, and then I'm officially free till Jan 15th, then I'm going to be slammed for a few months.
• [15:36] <@[Chair]Andrew> We have three code bugs that are the priority, the two aforementioned sets, we have OOC capability, so that isn't a pressing concern
• [15:36] <James[Code_SB]> Indeed
• [15:37] <@[Chair]Andrew> So, let's push for 6.4.1RC1 as soon at the bugs are fixed then
• [15:37] <@[Chair]Andrew> No pressure James :)
• [15:37] <James[Code_SB]> ok
• [15:38] <mjmeans> In case anyone here doesn't already know. I'm the point man for anything related to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. So if you field any questions from the forums or elsewhere, direct them to me on _exp. I only watch _exp and _dev. I intend to finalize all the PFSOP work for 6.4.1 this weekend. After that, it will be bug fixes only and stuff for 6.5.
• [15:38] <James[Code_SB]> Thanks Mark
• [15:38] <@[Chair]Andrew> Zaister, you able to lend a hand? Also, are any of the OS issues problematic enough to be included in 6.4.1?
• [15:38] <James[Code_SB]> Marl, do you test load PSOP characters from 6.4.0?
• [15:39] <@Zaister> I don’t really think so. The only really critical problem is the one with the characters that don’t get converted but I think it’s less than simple
• [15:39] <mjmeans> Yes.. 4 of my own characters ranging form 2nd level to 10th. 3 of my wives characters. My brother has his character (I don't know how many), but he's running a version from about a month ago.
• [15:39] <James[Code_SB]> Great to hear Mark
• [15:40] <mjmeans> PFSOP also publishes Pregenerated Characters. I have started putting them into PCGen to verify that PCGen is coming up with the right things on the character sheet.
• [15:40] <@[Chair]Andrew> and with the multi-set fix, we shouldn't have any broken PFS characters from 6.4.0 to 6.4.1
• [15:40] <@Zaister> characters in my last comment meaning UTF8 characters not game characters
• [15:40] <James[Code_SB]> Have you got a jira for that Stefan?
• [15:40] <@Zaister> let me check
• [15:41] <@[Chair]Andrew> OS-292
• [15:41] <@[Chair]Andrew> UTF-8 charset not supported
• [15:41] <James[Code_SB]> It would be nice to have a library of the pregens available for download
• [15:41] <@Zaister> OS-292
• [15:42] <@Zaister> I've done some exploring on that issue and I don’t believe it’s actually an OS thing
• [15:42] <mjmeans> Did dev notice the Jira I posted yesterday about editing abilities with CHOOSE? I think it breaks characters because it removes abilities from the OS silently with no notice or error indicating that anything is wrong.
• [15:42] <mjmeans> I'll start putting the pregens into a PFS folder on the repo, then
• [15:43] <James[Code_SB]> I haven't looked at that one Mark
• [15:43] <@[Chair]Andrew> Bug CODE-2774
• [15:43] <@[Chair]Andrew> Ability no applied to character after edit
• [15:43] <@[Chair]Andrew> Bug CODE-2773
• [15:43] <@[Chair]Andrew> PCC INCLUDE operation error
• [15:43] <mjmeans> 2774
• [15:43] <James[Code_SB]> Perhaps we should have a characters repo on git?
• [15:43] <James[Code_SB]> Are those blockers for 6.4.1?
• [15:44] <@[Chair]Andrew> I haven't evaluated them James
• [15:44] <@[Chair]Andrew> but those are PFS issues as far as I know
• [15:44] <mjmeans> BTW, in testing pregens, PCGen actually revealed an error on the Paizo published pregen. So far, so good.
• [15:44] <@[Chair]Andrew> we do have a nasty bug that came back though
• [15:44] <James[Code_SB]> nice :)
• [15:45] <James[Code_SB]> which is that?
• [15:45] <@[Chair]Andrew> CHOOSE with two or more choices will not allow any removal
• [15:45] <James[Code_SB]> jira?
• [15:45] <@[Chair]Andrew> Not sure, I'd have to look
• [15:45] <mjmeans> Wow, two issues with CHOOSE. Maybe a common cause?
• [15:46] <James[Code_SB]> if it isn't in jira I can;t do much about it. Don;t reopen an ancient one though - it will need to be a new report
• [15:46] <@[Chair]Andrew> Let me look, I have 104 jiras under my name.
• [15:46] <James[Code_SB]> Local thunderstorm have to sign off - have a good evening
• [15:46] *** James[Code_SB] has left #pcgen
• [15:50] <@[Chair]Andrew> Okay, questions about the GIT/GITHUB migration?
• [15:50] <mjmeans> no comments that were not already made on _exp
• [15:51] <Distant_Scholar> Just that I want to make sure I know what the proper workflow/command sequence/naming protocols will be once they're settled.
• [15:52] <@[Chair]Andrew> good question - the common form is code-###_Descript
• [15:52] <@[Chair]Andrew> JIRA ID_short description
• [15:53] <@[Chair]Andrew> or if not doing anything from jira, "feature_my cool feature"
• [15:53] <@[Chair]Andrew> We'll hammer that out soon I should think.
• [15:54] <@Zaister> that should be laid out in the wiki
• [15:54] <@[Chair]Andrew> Yeah, I'll put up a stub and then flesh it out once we have a consensus
• [15:55] <@[Chair]Andrew> Stefan, will you be able to lend James a hand with his impediment code bugs?
• [15:55] <@[Chair]Andrew> He flagged these:
• [15:56] <@[Chair]Andrew> [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> For 6.4.1, I want to get the following fixed:
• [15:56] <@[Chair]Andrew> [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> CODE-2771 - Java error on race change
• [15:56] <@[Chair]Andrew> [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> CODE-2766 - SITUATION Skills not displaying as they should
• [15:56] <@[Chair]Andrew> [15:08] <James[Code_SB]> CODE-2722 - PF - Minor Magic Rogue Talent cannot be picked
• [15:56] <@Zaister> yes i guess i can
• [15:58] <@[Chair]Andrew> I'll add this one to the mix: CODE-2775
• [15:58] <@[Chair]Andrew> CHOOSE w/ two or more choices will not allow any removal or changes
• [15:59] <@[Chair]Andrew> My son is trying to take over my lap with cars... Anything we need to discuss before I close the meeting?
• [15:59] <@Zaister> hehe, I don't think so
• [15:59] <@[Chair]Andrew> Mark? Doug?
• [16:00] <@[Chair]Andrew> Okay, thanks for coming everyone *Bangs gavel* Meeting closed.

PRE-MEETING Arch Discussion

• [14:02] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Hi all
• [14:02] <@[Chair]Andrew> Hi, you're early :)
• [14:02] <Tom[Arch_SB]> thought it was 5 PM?
• [14:02] <@[Chair]Andrew> Date & Time shows 3pm - 6pm EST
• [14:03] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I can't be here past 5:30
• [14:04] <Tom[Arch_SB]> oh
• [14:04] <Tom[Arch_SB]> hmm
• [14:04] <Tom[Arch_SB]> that's a problem
• [14:04] <Tom[Arch_SB]> crud
• [14:04] <Tom[Arch_SB]> running WAYYY too fast
• [14:05] <Tom[Arch_SB]> with too many things going on
• [14:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> So, given the change, how bout you give your report and I do some back/forth Q&A with you, and I'll pass it on to the meeting.
• [14:05] <@[Chair]Andrew> That work?
• [14:05] <Tom[Arch_SB]> The big challenge is what we want to do with the formula work - do we splice it in at all, just equipment or everything
• [14:06] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I still don't know how to effectively size that work, which is a problem
• [14:06] <@[Chair]Andrew> My personal preference and expectation is yes, splice it in, and everything.
• [14:06] <@[Chair]Andrew> The local vars in equipment require the big picture to do everything we need.
• [14:07] <@[Chair]Andrew> Fantasy Craft monkey needs it, and Mythic Campaigns needs it (Pathfinder source book)
• [14:08] <@[Chair]Andrew> I do know that the Formula Parser work is expected to take place after we move to GIT and GITHUB
• [14:08] <@[Chair]Andrew> which makes the work a bit easier to manage, since we can do the splice on a feature branch and leave the master development alone till we're happy it's stable.
• [14:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> GIT branching is a wonderful thing, since we can keep the branch sync'd with the master branch. :)
• [14:09] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I guess that's part of the discussion is how branching works
• [14:09] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I'm not sure I'm up to speed on the final decision there
• [14:09] <Tom[Arch_SB]> or really how it would work in practice
• [14:10] <@[Chair]Andrew> GIT branching is based on commits and labels
• [14:10] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I know the concepts
• [14:10] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I have not DONE it in a large project so I don't know the speed bumps that will be encountered
• [14:10] <@[Chair]Andrew> James, Henk, Kar and myself are all onboard for the move to GIT, we're just finalizing things on that front.
• [14:11] <@[Chair]Andrew> Big or small, as long as the formula work is based off an existing master branch commit, then merging should be fairly easy.
• [14:12] <@[Chair]Andrew> Anyways, I'm geared up to go full throttle with the formula parser being global and local, as we're needing both to implement a massive number of projects
• [14:13] <Tom[Arch_SB]> That's part of my concern
• [14:14] <Tom[Arch_SB]> is I'm worried how much time I can put in to it
• [14:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> What we still need from you is - Conversion scope (James' concern) for homebrews, and then a roadmap of our conversion to each tag. I know it's a Data team decision, but we should still confer for best practices.
• [14:14] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I think it will have to be a live conversation with James
• [14:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> once GITHUB is set up, anyone can maintain the FP branch to keep it in sync.
• [14:15] <Tom[Arch_SB]> which makes it unfortunate that I messed up times today
• [14:15] <@[Chair]Andrew> Let me ping James, see if he can join early
• [14:16] <@[Chair]Andrew> When do you anticipate being available to chat live?
• [14:19] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I guess that depends on how detailed the questions get to know how long it would be vs just catching James on lunch at some point
• [14:19] *** James[Code_SB] has joined #pcgen
• [14:19] <@[Chair]Andrew> Well, I was hoping to participate, and I still need to confer with you about tag conversion process.
• [14:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> Hi James!
• [14:20] <James[Code_SB]> Morning
• [14:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> Log snippet sent, Tom has limited time left
• [14:20] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Hi James
• [14:21] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Thanks for adjusting a bit, I messed up my Friday schedule
• [14:22] <James[Code_SB]> np
• [14:22] <@[Chair]Andrew> So summary: Scope of project for Formula Parser, Branching it in GIT, and whether to focus on equipment vars, or everything.
• [14:22] <@[Chair]Andrew> Then I mentioned Conversion concerns for homebrew
• [14:22] <James[Code_SB]> excellent
• [14:23] <James[Code_SB]> ok, so what did you want to cover first?
• [14:23] <@[Chair]Andrew> Tom, floor is yours.
• [14:24] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Let's start with your biggest concern and go from there
• [14:24] <Tom[Arch_SB]> your = James
• [14:24] <James[Code_SB]> ok
• [14:24] <James[Code_SB]> That to me is conversion of data
• [14:24] <James[Code_SB]> We saw a push back for the lack of conversion with the epic BAB changes
• [14:25] <James[Code_SB]> I think that is quite reasonable and feel that migration of people's existing work needs to be a first class citizen in the design of the formula parser
• [14:27] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I don't know that I can anticipate all of the changes required to go from a BONUS to a MODIFY model
• [14:27] <Tom[Arch_SB]> So maybe this is not a feasible project
• [14:27] <Tom[Arch_SB]> for any tactical timeframe anyway
• [14:27] <@[Chair]Andrew> I suggested a per gamemode file similar to migration to handle the BONUS> MODIFY
• [14:27] <James[Code_SB]> Yes that could work Andrew
• [14:28] <Tom[Arch_SB]> let's look at that however
• [14:28] <James[Code_SB]> or we could provide some manual intervention, which the converter is already geared up to allow
• [14:29] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Looking at an existing bonus
• [14:29] <Tom[Arch_SB]> BONUS:EQMWEAPON|CRITRANGEADD|MyFormula|TYPE=Foo
• [14:30] <Tom[Arch_SB]> let's assume data makes a "CritRange" variable on Equipment
• [14:30] <Tom[Arch_SB]> in some game mode
• [14:30] <Tom[Arch_SB]> then we have MODIFY:CritRange|ADD|MyFormula
• [14:30] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Two problems
• [14:30] <Tom[Arch_SB]> (1) The TYPE went away
• [14:30] <Tom[Arch_SB]> (2) MyFormula may be a built in term that is no longer valid
• [14:31] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Both would have to be handled in a full conversion
• [14:31] <James[Code_SB]> Where does the type go in a proper manual conversion?
• [14:32] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I have to look back at the last conversation I was having with Mark and Andrew
• [14:32] <Tom[Arch_SB]> there were some ideas there to keep it from having to be a separate var
• [14:34] <@[Chair]Andrew> it's on the wiki
• [14:35] <@[Chair]Andrew> http://wiki.pcgen.org/Meeting_2014_11_07#Log_for_New_Formula_Parser_Discussion
• [14:37] <Tom[Arch_SB]> ah, I remember now
• [14:37] <Tom[Arch_SB]> hmm
• [14:37] <Tom[Arch_SB]> let's ignore TYPE for a moment and assume it can be converted more easily than I explained
• [14:38] <James[Code_SB]> k
• [14:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> The concept requires some larger okay's from other _dev folks but there is at least a possibility there
• [14:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> The problem is then the formula
• [14:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> what if it contains an output token?
• [14:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> or a built in term?
• [14:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> what's the limit of what has to be converted?
• [14:40] <@[Chair]Andrew> Can we flag each with a manual conversion and the possible answers?
• [14:41] <@[Chair]Andrew> for instance, assuming this is OS var("AC.NaturalArmor")
• [14:41] <Tom[Arch_SB]> but possible answers requires we parse the formula to a point where the code can understand it
• [14:41] <James[Code_SB]> or we set up the conversion once for the formula terms
• [14:41] <James[Code_SB]> Agreed, we can;t naively convert I wouldn't think
• [14:41] <James[Code_SB]> but we might be able to have a jep parser which did a conversion instead of a calculation
• [14:45] <James[Code_SB]> or is that being too optimistic?
• [14:45] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I'm absorbing how much work that might be
• [14:45] <Tom[Arch_SB]> and I'm going to have to run soon
• [14:45] <James[Code_SB]> Understood
• [14:46] <James[Code_SB]> Well, I think it is on the table now, which was my main concern
• [14:46] <James[Code_SB]> Anything else you wanted to cover before you left?
• [14:46] <@[Chair]Andrew> I'm assuming we're not expecting a full conversion till 6.10 or later right? We'll be having both systems in place?
• [14:47] <James[Code_SB]> Yeah if we can still support old style data that sounds like a decent target
• [14:47] <@[Chair]Andrew> then the conversion is another sub project and doesn't hold up the formula project
• [14:48] <@[Chair]Andrew> the two systems can co-exist, they just can't interact with each other.
• [14:48] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I don't buy that they can be separate
• [14:48] <Tom[Arch_SB]> the *instant* you change a game mode all the homebrew breaks
• [14:48] <James[Code_SB]> and the best way to test a conversion is to run our data through it
• [14:49] *** Distant has joined #pcgen
• [14:49] <@[Chair]Andrew> which I can run on a separate branch in GIT :)
• [14:49] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I'll do some looking at what might be possible
• [14:50] <@[Chair]Andrew> Tom, when can we do another live chat session?
• [14:50] <Tom[Arch_SB]> next BoD slot?
• [14:50] <Tom[Arch_SB]> 19th?
• [14:50] <@[Chair]Andrew> sounds right
• [14:51] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I need time to come back up to speed anyway
• [14:51] <Tom[Arch_SB]> been doing too much cardboard box unloading and not much PCGen
• [14:51] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Catch you guys later
• [14:51] <@[Chair]Andrew> Later Tom
• [14:51] <James[Code_SB]> k, have a good evening Tom
• [14:51] *** Tom[Arch_SB] has left #pcgen
• [14:52] <@[Chair]Andrew> Well, that was a good discussion.