This is an old revision of the document!
Note: this page should be about the discussion that took place during the conference itself. Comments should be written elsewhere, e.g. on the mailing list.
The conference started at 20:00 UTC.
(notes by @ywang)
(notes by @blockhead)
dario23: A more noob-friendly timetable system.
orwell: Timetable
(notes by @dario23, via @Blockhead) Dario23 proposed a new track with the following specifications:
(back to notes from @Blockhead) Describing dario's proposal in my own words
orwell: Seeing that there was not really any opposition to the proposal any more, made a request for someone to step forward and work on the timetable system because he has not got the time. Some sign of commitment from gpcf but nobody else.
(mixed notes by @ywang and @Blockhead)
route_prog_rework
branch. The goal of the branch is to improve the experience of route programming.(notes by @ywang and @Blockhead)
advtrains_itrainmap
mod could be revived, but orwell would not like to see it return in its previous form.(notes by @ywang)
(notes by @Blockhead) A few systems were discussed, mostly for what could replace hemiptera, but source control and contribution also inevitably came up.
* SourceHut
* Notabug or self-hosted gitea
orwell would like to keep the sourcehut mailing lists in any case as a reliable point of contact.
Among source repositories, although it was clear that there are many mirrors, the consensus was to keep bananach.space as the authoritative repository, under gpcf's control rather than a third party. No clear consensus emerged on what to do about improving bugtracking or making contributing easier.
gpcf: For push access to bananach.space, email him. Contributors can be given push access to only specific branches and only a few have access to master.
(notes by @ywang)
dev
branch for testing and then merging it into the master branch.(notes by @Blockhead) Proposal from Blockhead to add a 'dev' branch that is ahead of or equal to master where we can merge without worrying about whether something is broken and that broken state has gone into master.
gpcf: Master is not expected to be unbroken. Only releases. Adding this branch would not help us but instead overcomplicate the existing workflow.
ywang, 56independent: would prefer master to be unbroken, but can agree it is not necessary. 56independent said he was running master on his server but could move to stable release.
Blockhead, gpcf: Server owners should not be running master unless they are prepared to beta test advtrains. Linuxforks is the main public test server.
orwell concludes: Probably more work than benefit. The project does not move fast enough to warrant it. Our current methodology works. Feature branches work well for our purposes so far.
(notes by @ywang and @Blockhead)
(notes by @ywang)
(notes by @Blockhead and @gpcf)
(notes by @Blockhead)