gtg-gsoc team mailing list archive

[Lionel Dricot <ploum@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I'm a proponent of early merges.
I propose that Luca does his merge so Paul can work.


I would like to propose the following schedule:
- Everything that can break heavily should be merged before GUADEC
- 1st of August will be feature freeze. We only allow bugfixes from that
point.
- 1st of September is string freeze and code freeze. We release 0.2.9
- 10th of September: we release 0.3 (so we can be included in Ubuntu
10.10)

I expect 0:3 to still be unstable. Backends will be young. Plugins too.
Some plugins will be missing.

We will then polish 0.4 to make it a very stable release. Most work
between 0.3 and 0.4 should be plugins, backends and bug fixing.


Regarding SOC:


Paul: I've a problem. Currently, we use display directly our filtered tree
in the GTK treeview. That's the purpose of filtered tree and that's allow
us to have bare metal performances.

I don't see how this can be sent through DBus without a huge performance
gap. What's your opinion  on this ?

FYI, I was tired of the bugs in all our tree implementations when stressed
with Bryce's taskset. More: bugs had to be solved twice: once for tagtree,
once for tasktree. I'm thus putting everything related to tree (Tree,
TreeNode, FilteredTree, FiltersBank) in one big generic library that I
called "liblarch" (because the larch is a tree you can recognize from quite
a long way away. The laaaarch.).  

This library will be used by tags and tasks and will provide an easy,
unified interface to view a tree, as weel a GTK frontend.

I've started working on it without breaking GTG at all by, guess what,
writing the tests first then implementing (jml will be proud of me)! It
works, I've already spotted one bug in the filteredtree !  So, currently,
it's in tools/larch/ and is only used by unit tests. The interface that you
can use is in __init__.py, everything else will be private and parts of the
internal implementation.


That's a messy mail, I know. I didn't write the mail_unit_test before
writing this one.

Lionel



On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:20:50 +0200, Luca Invernizzi
<invernizzi.l@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've used that merge mainly to show what was the general direction I
> was heading and to be a warning sign for possible conflicting changes
> (it worked! :D).
> I've fixed all the changes Lionel suggested, so   if its  useful to
> you I can propose a merge about the part of the code which I consider
> stable (mainly, the new datastore, the changed localfile backend and
> the loading and saving of backends -including the related tests).
> 
> Can you describe a little what "inpactful changes to the storage
> system" are you thinking about? That way, I can see  if something else
> needs to be changed.
> Thanks!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~gtg-gsoc
> Post to     : gtg-gsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~gtg-gsoc
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp