SSU Development Thread (3.0 to 4.0)

[Urwumpe]

That sounds good. I just need a milestone to log the issues under.

No, problem, I will organize this after work (~3 hours), unless somebody else is faster.

 

[DaveS]

No, problem, I will organize this after work (~3 hours), unless somebody else is faster.

Well, you and SC are the only ones with admin access to the SSU SF.net project so you're the only ones who open/close versions.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, you and SC are the only ones with admin access to the SSU SF.net project so you're the only ones who open/close versions.

Not sure if this is also needed for the ticket management. Maybe we should distribute some of my privileges, I don't need to be omnipotent.

 

[Donamy]

Would startracker doors be possible for 3.1 ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Would startracker doors be possible for 3.1 ?

Not from my end at the current plan, also it doesn't really matter in which milestone we put it. It could for example be, that a possible 3.2 milestone is done to 70% when the 3.1 milestone is considered done. Then it makes no sense to release 3.1, but to wait for for 3.2.

We could for example put all mechanic systems into a 3.2 milestone, so we start to build on the 3.1 milestone there. That does not prevent us from already implementing 3.2 tickets in parallel.

All that milestone stuff is only roughly equivalent to releases, it is more important for task planning and assigning rough priorities in which order we have to implement. We may release. And we may not.

 

[Donamy]

Are you talking pig latin ?

Boy am I, um-day.

 

[Urwumpe]

Are you talking pig latin ?

Boy am I, um-day.

Pardon? :huh:

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

I created a number of intermediate milestones towards 4.0.

Don't expect them to be cast in stone - I tried to get them into a order, that makes more use of the previous milestones and avoids additional work. It was not always possible, but on the other hand, some other milestones are also independent and could also be done in a different order.

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

About the user rights on SF:

We have three admins right now, I think that three is also a good number for that. We have kwan3218, SiameseCat and me. As I see it, the only viable candidate to offer his admin position to somebody else is me. Despite kwan3218 being pretty idle right now, he had been important contributor at the start of SSU and I think he deserves the "eternal chairman" position as much as Siamesecat, who created the SSU project. Anybody thinking he can do the job better than I can?

Aside of that, I can also allow some of the developers to act as release technician, who can also produce releases. We have the three administrators automatically as release technician, the question is, if it makes sense to have more RTs. Too many is also bad, since it makes it harder to coordinate responsibility and causes "position bloat"

An other possibility would be creating a new group between administrators and developers. Like "Four season developers" or so. And allow this group, to also manage milestones for the tickets and other development tasks.

Next - we can also change the fields for our ticket management system. Any suggestions for improvements?

 

[Donamy]

It was a joke. Don't tell me you've never heard of the three stooges in Germany.

 

[Urwumpe]

It was a joke. Don't tell me you've never heard of the three stooges in Germany.

I have a picture, but their humour translates very badly to Germany. In fact, if you would say stooges to me, I would think of a semi-nude Iggy Pop first.

 

[Donamy]

Really, that is very interesting. Every male in US loves the three stooges I believe, many women don't get the humor.

 

[Urwumpe]

Really, that is very interesting. Every male in US loves the three stooges I believe, many women don't get the humor.

I had seen them on arte TV once... it was like watching a Japanese show on dynamite fishing. I never felt so confused.

 

[Notebook]

They are a unique act. That blend of fast patter and slapstick isn't in fashion today, not sure it translates at all well to modern times.
I like them, I'd put them alongside the Marx Brothers and Laurel & Hardy when they are at their best. Probably came out of the Vaudeville tradition, not sure though?

N.

 

[SiameseCat]

Is there any word on when the old v2.0 entry in Orbit Hangar is going to be replaced?

Done. Thanks for the reminder; I'd totally forgotten about this until I saw this post while catching up on the SSU dev thread.

 

[GLS]

Done. Thanks for the reminder; I'd totally forgotten about this until I saw this post while catching up on the SSU dev thread.

Thanks!
Did you add SSU 3.0 there? It doesn't show up...

---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 AM ----------

Well, the in semantic versioning, the first patch would be numbered 3.0.1, I could make a special milestone for 3.0.1 as well to collect those.

I don't see people complaining about any bugs on 3.0 so far, so if we are to release a patch for it, it would only contain the fix for the Challenger texture. Anything else would be >= 3.1 IMO.

About the KU band antenna, I'll do some reading now to see what can be done (if anything) without the GPCs.

 

[SiameseCat]

Thanks!
Did you add SSU 3.0 there? It doesn't show up...

Not yet. Are there any objections if I upload the zip file (instead of linking to Sourceforge)? We had problems last time because of the file size, but the download is much smaller this time.

 

[GLS]

Not yet. Are there any objects if I upload the zip file (instead of linking to Sourceforge)? We had problems last time because of the file size, but the download is much smaller this time.

Can't a link be added? As it is already hosted in SF, I don't see the point of having it using disk space in OH. I think just the addon entry is enough, thanks OH :hello:.

 

[Urwumpe]

Not yet. Are there any objections if I upload the zip file (instead of linking to Sourceforge)? We had problems last time because of the file size, but the download is much smaller this time.

Well, my only objection would be that we would keep a single download statistic by just linking to SF and also keep the load on the O-H server lower.

But that is not really important for a decision.

---------- Post added at 01:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ----------

I don't see people complaining about any bugs on 3.0 so far, so if we are to release a patch for it, it would only contain the fix for the Challenger texture. Anything else would be >= 3.1 IMO.

DaveS has some complaints already, and I am sure, there will be more soon. It always takes a moment before people really realize how crappy things are.

What about the user rights?

 

[GLS]

DaveS has some complaints already, and I am sure, there will be more soon. It always takes a moment before people really realize how crappy things are.

What about the user rights?

How about we release a 3.0.1 version on September 22nd? It would include a fix for the bugs that are found, just bug fixes no new features, and then we move on to 3.1 or whatever.

 

[DaveS]

What about the user rights?

The only thing I would think of is the ability to administer the ticket list a bit better. Maybe even the ability to upload files.

 

[Urwumpe]

How about we release a 3.0.1 version on September 22nd? It would include a fix for the bugs that are found, just bug fixes no new features, and then we move on to 3.1 or whatever.

I would collect at least until the end of September and then decide if it is worth a release for a bug fix. Remember that the bugfixes have to be done on the 3.0 branch first and can then be merged into trunk, so we still can go on with the work towards 4.0