[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Com IRC meeting's agenda item 5 and IISH planning for going live with 2.0 beta Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Community IRC Meeting (was: Reminder: Developer IRC Meeting, Tuesday October 19)

[Repke de Vries]

Dear all

the Community Meeting's starting time is not too bad for Europeans (8  
p.m. Amsterdam time [IISH's base], right?) but unfortunately I am  
away for the evening.

The following is to inform on agenda item 5:
" .. 2.0 alpha4 to 2.0 gold - works in progress, discuss of what will  
make it in for general release, hash out schedule .."

At IISH we are steadily working towards going live with 2.0 beta late  
November or early December - this schedule being based  on the  
Evergreen developers' planning so far, i.e. having the beta out in  
the course of November. And based on discussions with Dan Scott that  
it would be very helpful to have a library going live with the 2.0  
beta after KCLS having gone into production with one of the 2.0 alpha's.

My question to the meeting: are you still aiming at November for the  
beta ?

Our side it is too early still to really tell if we can make it by,  
say, late November or that mid December is more realistic: we are in  
the middle of rounding off feedback on all the new authorities  
functionality commissioned by IISH [1], have work going on (in-house)  
on some of the staff client functionality and only start testing data  
import beginning of November.  The alpha4 Virtual Image is our yard  
stick right now and all preparations and tests based on it.
But trying hard to keep our planning for end of November, beginning  
of December (DIG list colleagues [and Robert Soulierre]: not  
forgetting about DIG contributions, being it 2.0 based):

thanks, the IISH team, Repke de Vries

[1] http://coffeecode.net/archives/229-Authorities-in-Evergreen-an- 
Amsterdam-trip-report.html    is basically done [thanks Dan !!]


Op 18-okt-2010, om 23:03 heeft Dan Scott het volgende geschreven:

> Just a heads-up that many of us on IRC on a day-in, day-out basis
> generally think this should really be called the "Community IRC
> Meeting" due to the focus on communication about the project,
> including an agenda with items calling for reports from:
>
>   * Documentation Interest Group
>   * Reports Taskforce
>   * Web Site Committee (and Communications Committee?)
>   * Governance Committee
>   * Developers, with a particular focus on release status
>
> One of the goals of these meetings is to communicate the state of the
> project across committee/group boundaries and to find problems that
> need to be solved / resources to help solve identified problems.
>
> Dan
>
> On 15 October 2010 10:33, Ben Shum <bshum at biblio.org> wrote:
>>  Time for another developer meeting!  The next Evergreen  
>> development IRC
>> meeting will be held at:
>>
>>  * 11:00:00 a.m. Tuesday October 19, 2010 in America/Los_Angeles
>>
>>  * 02:00:00 p.m. Tuesday October 19, 2010 in Canada/Eastern
>>
>>  * 06:00:00 p.m. Tuesday October 19, 2010 in UTC
>>
>> This is a public meeting for Evergreen developers that will be  
>> held on
>> the #evergreen channel on the Freenode IRC network
>> (http://open-ils.org/irc.php). All members of the community with an
>> interest in contributing to the development of Evergreen are  
>> welcome to
>> attend.  If you are unable to attend at the designated time,  
>> please feel
>> free to submit comments for any of the agenda items in advance to the
>> Evergreen development mailing list.
>>
>> The agenda is evolving at
>> http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=dev:meetings:2010-10 -
>> please extend and amend to ensure that it meets the immediate  
>> concerns
>> of the project.
>>
>> For agenda items that have the potential to be too long to express
>> during a single IRC meeting, it would probably make sense to post  
>> more
>> considered opinions in advance on this mailing list. Examples of such
>> agenda items might include major release process changes or  
>> drastically
>> revising our bug tracking processes. If a given discussion item  
>> starts
>> eating up too much meeting time and a decision is not immediately
>> necessary, we can also delegate the responsibility to a volunteer
>> sub-team for investigating alternatives and coming up with a proposal
>> for adoption at the next meeting.
>>
>