Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
116 lines (102 loc) · 5.25 KB

discussion-2021-02-12.md

File metadata and controls

116 lines (102 loc) · 5.25 KB
Date and time 2021-02-12T15:00Z
Topic Review of proposals for the standard application registration format
Next Meeting 2021-02-26T15:00Z

Participants

In Attendance

Name Information
@Eeems Oxide author and Toltec maintainer
@LinusCDE Toltec maintainer
@matteodelabre Toltec maintainer
@raisjn Toltec maintainer
@dixonary Draft launcher and .draft format author
@danshick Toltec contributor

Regrets

No regrets.

Standing Items

  • Determine next meeting date: 2021-02-26T15:00Z
  • Confirm meeting notes from previous meeting: OK
  • Determine if Toltec target release date should be moved
    • Current target date: February 15 (Monday)
      • This target will most probably not be met
      • Defer decision of a new target date until next meeting
    • We want to have good support for reMarkable 2 before announcing
      • We don’t want to have to deal with too many support requests
      • Prevent installation of incompatible packages on reMarkable 1
    • Display support for reMarkable 2
      • Make packages that use the display depend on a display package
      • Split the display package so that
        • On reMarkable 1 it does nothing
        • On reMarkable 2 it installs rm2fb
      • In the future, display could become a metapackage provided by several implementations
    • Pending pull requests/changes
    • Sort out how to do incremental updates without needing to re-run the bootstrap script
      • How to notify users for manual intervention?
        • Hook into opkg to show messages from maintainers
          • Needs a wrapper script or opkg patch
        • Central webpage for messages

Old Business

  • Schedule meeting to select format for files & supported program locations
    • Current proposals
      • XDG
      • Draft (extension)
      • Oxide
      • Eeems’ proposal
      • (YAML|TOML) + Schema
    • Participants
    • Date: 2021-02-18T15:00Z
  • Criterion for sign off on testing branch PRs
    • What’s the testing/stable model?
      • What level of QA?
    • Reduce redundant work for stable merges
    • Criteria for merging to testing
      • Must pass the CI checks
      • Must run on the device
      • Have a test plan:
        • Stating what the author has tested
        • Asking for extra testing from the reviewer
      • Add a pull request template for this
        • Note: Multiple templates are supported in GitHub
        • @LinusCDE will create the template
    • Must update https://github.com/toltec-dev/toltec/blob/stable/docs/branches.md
  • Increasing the bus factor
    • Nothing to add
    • Final decision should be part of the standard operating procedure
      • Especially re. the notification to maintainers if Mattéo moves

New Business

  • Adding new members
    • Core team: Repository maintainers
      • Ability to approve and merge new packages
    • Collaborators: Package maintainers
      • Approval from Git file owner?
    • Decide on the process for adding members to the core team
      • Currently based on a graph of trust
      • Recommendation process from one existing member
      • Give enough time for everyone to think about it
      • Part of the standard operating procedure
    • Add @danshick to the core team
    • Make a document to have a log of core team members
    • A PR will be opened for both creating the members list and adding @danshick
  • Enable discussions for Toltec

Decision log

Description Decision
Use a PR-based process for adding new members Everyone agrees