Hi Folks,
Okay, it looks like we've got about 41 people RSVP'd. About 5 from CodeWeavers that are going haven't RSVP'd, and a number RSVP'd to say no, and there were 1 or 2 dups.
So I would make a WAG (wild ass guess) that we're going to have about 50 when the dust all settles.
It looks like a pretty eclectic mix, too. A lot of Samba, a lot of ReactOS, really quite a mix.
So I have no idea how we want to structure an agenda.
We need an agenda, and someone (or multiple someones) to serve as the M.C.
At this point, I think the only givens are a short intro and welcome to Stuttgart by WRS and then a keynote by Alexandre.
Last year, we ended up having no shortage of speakers. At first, I was panicked because we were short, but it filled up (and we even had to cram people in a bit).
Personally, I think we should try to be pretty severe in limiting the number and length of presentations. In fact, I think the ideal may be a short (< 30 minutes) presentation followed by a 30-45 minute break. Everyone can come to the start to be polite, and people really interested can stay and discuss further. Everyone else can head back to the other room for general topics.
I had one ISV that was using Wine express an interest in presenting; I've emailed him just now to see if he's still interested.
I'd like to present (and pitch) the cxtest visual regression stuff we're doing, but that's my personal agenda, and could take a back seat to something else.
Anyone else have something they'd like to present? Or something they'd like to see covered?
We tried last year to have a session on Games and a session on COM (aka InstallShield); any other hot topics that are obvious?
Cheers,
Jer
As it was written in the Book of Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com:
So I have no idea how we want to structure an agenda.
I think we should start by following last year's format, and if it looks like there just too many good topics to not include something, then we split into different tracks as necessary. Three presentations in the morning and three in the afternoon was roughly what we had last year.
We need an agenda, and someone (or multiple someones) to serve as the M.C.
I nominate Jeremy as MC. I think the primary job of the MC is to just watch the clock and make sure everything flows smoothly.
Personally, I think we should try to be pretty severe in limiting the number and length of presentations. In fact, I think the ideal may be a short (< 30 minutes) presentation followed by a 30-45 minute break. Everyone can come to the start to be
I agree.
I had one ISV that was using Wine express an interest in presenting; I've emailed him just now to see if he's still interested.
One thing I'd love to hear is something about enterprise deployment. Is that something they could speak about? This is purely selfish reasons - I have a book chapter about the topic and I have no clue what I'm going to write. I think it's also something that could benefit developers to hear though.
I'd like to present (and pitch) the cxtest visual regression stuff we're doing, but that's my personal agenda, and could take a back seat to something else.
Yeah, that'd be cool.
Anyone else have something they'd like to present? Or something they'd like to see covered?
(For those of you forgetting last year, here's the summary: http://www.winehq.com/?issue=208 )
Here's what I'd like to see:
WRS intro Keynote - Alexandre Road to .9 and 1.0 - Dimi ReactOS demo - all the ReactOS guys Ideas for Samba and Wine to share the same playground - Andrew Tridgell CXTest - CodeWeavers DirectX / WineD3D - Jason Edmeades
Last year's combo of Alexandre and Dimi really fit well together. The ReactOS demo is always neat, and there's definitely a lot of activity on that project. If Tridge is coming, I think it would be neat if he could speak about any ideas he might have for integrating networking stuff into Wine - I know Juan already ran into problems last year when he was working on Network Neighborhood. Or, maybe we get Juan to present something from a Wine perspective on what we'd like out of Samba. Finally, if the DirectX stuff really takes off it'd be neat to see Jason show off some of his work.
-Brian
I nominate Jeremy as MC. I think the primary job of the MC is to just watch the clock and make sure everything flows smoothly.
I'm happy to be MC, although I think it's a role that many folks can play, and I don't want to step on any of our hosts toes.
Here's what I'd like to see:
I'd like to return the 'favor', though, and nominate Brian to be the coordinator of the agenda. Bluntly, I think there are going to be hard decisions to be made. While I think Brian should rely on consensus, I think we need someone forcing the hard choices upon us, and perhaps even making some of them.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Jeremy White wrote:
I'd like to return the 'favor', though, and nominate Brian to be the coordinator of the agenda.
Seconded
As it was written in the Book of Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com:
I'd like to return the 'favor', though, and nominate Brian to be the coordinator of the agenda. Bluntly, I think there are going to be hard decisions to be made. While I think Brian should rely on consensus, I think we need someone forcing the hard choices upon us, and perhaps even making some of them.
Sounds good. Over the next few weeks I'll work on putting something together and contact people about it. The number I'll shoot for is 12 presentations and try to make them general enough that everyone will be interested.
-Brian
Brian Vincent wrote:
I nominate Jeremy as MC. I think the primary job of the MC is to just
watch the clock and make sure everything flows smoothly.
I second the motion..
Tom
Jeremy White wrote:
Anyone else have something they'd like to present? Or something they'd like to see covered?
A quick talk/demo of SVK (distributed version control) might be interesting for the people who write a *lot* of patches.
thanks -mike
Mike Hearn wrote:
A quick talk/demo of SVK (distributed version control) might be interesting for the people who write a *lot* of patches.
A bit of a hot topic, isn't it? It boils down to such questions as "should the current revision control mechanism be replaced"?
Come to think of it, I'm for it. Having somewhere I can commit stuff that is "in progress", and not "Alexandre ready" would be really nice. Having it publicly available, so other people can see and comment would be great.
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Mike Hearn wrote:
A quick talk/demo of SVK (distributed version control) might be interesting for the people who write a *lot* of patches.
A bit of a hot topic, isn't it? It boils down to such questions as "should the current revision control mechanism be replaced"?
Hey, as long as we're on touchy subjects, how about using bitkeeper? Oh, wait, Alexandre nixed that a long time ago, according to http://www.kerneltraffic.org/wine/wn20000515_43_print.html#2 Nevermind. - Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
Hey, as long as we're on touchy subjects, how about using bitkeeper? Oh, wait, Alexandre nixed that a long time ago, according to http://www.kerneltraffic.org/wine/wn20000515_43_print.html#2 Nevermind.
Interesting, I have never seen that list from Alexandre before. We're very close to the original goals set out for 1.0, let alone 0.9!
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com writes:
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Mike Hearn wrote:
A quick talk/demo of SVK (distributed version control) might be interesting for the people who write a *lot* of patches.
A bit of a hot topic, isn't it? It boils down to such questions as "should the current revision control mechanism be replaced"?
Hey, as long as we're on touchy subjects, how about using bitkeeper? Oh, wait, Alexandre nixed that a long time ago, according to http://www.kerneltraffic.org/wine/wn20000515_43_print.html#2 Nevermind.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if we switch to a better system it will be arch and not subversion (and certainly not bitkeeper). But yes that would be a good topic for a (lively ;-) discussion.
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 21:55 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if we switch to a better system it will be arch and not subversion (and certainly not bitkeeper). But yes that would be a good topic for a (lively ;-) discussion.
Heh, and if I demonstrate that SVK (which is based upon subversion but is not subversion itself) is equivalent to arch in functionality and yet faster and easier to use ... would you consider it then?
Well. We'll see how it goes :) Until then I'll play with the gateway and see if anybody else uses it. I know Oliver and James wanted to fiddle too.
Mike Hearn mh@codeweavers.com writes:
Heh, and if I demonstrate that SVK (which is based upon subversion but is not subversion itself) is equivalent to arch in functionality and yet faster and easier to use ... would you consider it then?
I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that, but sure you are welcome to try...
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
A bit of a hot topic, isn't it? It boils down to such questions as "should the current revision control mechanism be replaced"?
Actually no. I'm setting up a gateway at the moment that should let people get most of the benefit without any changes to WineHQ.
To get the full benefit yes we'd have to switch HQ over to Subversion, which isn't a huge or difficult change but does require some work and Newman/Julliard have to be convinced of the benefits first. So the gateway will do for now.
I'll post more about this gateway once I've got it set up and used it myself for a bit.
Come to think of it, I'm for it. Having somewhere I can commit stuff that is "in progress", and not "Alexandre ready" would be really nice. Having it publicly available, so other people can see and comment would be great.
Yep, well the idea behind distributed version control is you can branch HQ and then commit to your local branch, and maybe publish your own tree somewhere. I'll be experimenting more with all this in the next few months leading up to WineConf.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Brian Vincent -
Dan Kegel -
Jeremy White -
Mike Hearn -
Shachar Shemesh -
Tom