Timestamps are in GMT/BST.
[4:06] -lindbohm.freenode.net- *** Looking up your hostname...
[4:06] -lindbohm.freenode.net- *** Checking Ident
[4:06] -lindbohm.freenode.net- *** Found your hostname
[4:06] -lindbohm.freenode.net- *** No Ident response
[4:06] [frigg VERSION]
[4:06] * DuraLogBot (~PircBot@fedcommsrv1.nsdlib.org) has joined #duraspace
[4:06] * Topic is 'Welcome to DuraSpace - This channel is logged - http://duraspace.org/irclogs/'
[4:06] * Set by cwilper on Tue Jun 30 16:32:05 EDT 2009
[5:04] * Tonny_DK (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[5:06] * Tonny_DK (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[5:57] * grahamtriggs (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[8:27] * mhwood (~mhwood@2001:18e8:3:171:218:8bff:fe2a:56a4) has joined #duraspace
[9:32] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[10:15] * bradmc (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[10:39] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[10:40] * tdonohue (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[12:20] * grahamtriggs (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has left #duraspace
[12:29] * bradmc (~email@example.com) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[12:30] * bradmc (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[14:00] * tdonohue (~email@example.com) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[14:05] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[14:14] * keithg (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[14:25] * grahamtriggs (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[14:58] * mdiggory (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[14:59] <tdonohue> Hi all...the DSpace developers meeting will start here shortly....we'll kick off with 1.6 release schedule updates, and a Jira review... if anyone has anything else to add, feel free
[15:01] <tdonohue> Ok. I'll kick things off with 1.6 release schedule updates, since stuartlewis is out of town this week
[15:02] <tdonohue> Essentially, the latest is the 1.6.0 RC2 has been "cut"...I'm now just waiting for the external Maven Repository to pick up the release...once that happens, I'll send out an announcement
[15:02] * richardrodgers (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[15:03] <tdonohue> next week, Stuart & I have set up a second Testathon for 1.6 RC2. Assuming all goes well, we hope to release 1.6.0 final on or about March 1
[15:03] <tdonohue> That's basically all the big updates for 1.6. Any questions / comments? (And, a huge thanks to everyone for helping us get 1.6.0 RC2 out the door!)
[15:03] <mdiggory> definitely good news.
[15:04] <mhwood> Yay!
[15:04] <richardrodgers> yes thanks to the 1.6 team
[15:04] <kshepherd> yep, nice one
[15:05] * tdonohue applauds all of you! :)
[15:05] <mdiggory> Looking forward to our meetings opening up to new topics and activities
[15:06] <tdonohue> Yes, we are now a bit "freed" up in terms of our meetings since 1.6 is nearly "out the door"
[15:07] <mdiggory> Do we have a place to list special topic meeting ideas?
[15:07] <mdiggory> is that with the irc logs page?
[15:07] <tdonohue> It's off the main page of the Wiki: http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/Special_Topics
[15:08] <tdonohue> If you just have a topic to bring up, I'd encourage posting a brief mention to this page: http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/Special_Topics
[15:08] <tdonohue> However, if you have more fully thought out proposal, we have a place for that as well: http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/Proposals
[15:09] <richardrodgers> speaking of which I just added a release proposal there
[15:09] <tdonohue> As I mentioned last week, I'd like to encourage everyone to especially be thinking about how we can improve our Release Process or Cycle. There's already one proposal for some changes, and I know of others coming soon
[15:09] <tdonohue> thanks richardrodgers!
[15:09] <tdonohue> I know stuartlewis is also working on some ideas for changing the release process, based on what he learned during his time as 1.6 Release Coordinator
[15:10] <tdonohue> So, there will be several suggestions forthcoming, and I'd like to have a Special Topics meeting specifically around Release Processes sometime in the near future (though because of dev8D/code4lib that likely means sometime in March)
[15:12] <tdonohue> Are there any thoughts/suggestions/comments on any of this? Does this seem like a good process to all of you? I'm essentially wanting to get all these ideas out on the table so we can begin to move forward with one or more that we can agree upon
[15:12] * jtrimble (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[15:14] <mdiggory> well, I'd like to see us be selecting from a list of special topics in this or future meetings and attempting to schedule them
[15:14] <mhwood> I haven't yet looked over specific proposals, but the structure seems reasonable.
[15:14] <tdonohue> mdiggory: agreed.
[15:14] <mdiggory> rather than making it a "big process" just make it part of the meeting process, like JIRA stuff
[15:15] <mdiggory> maybe we can have someone moderate each special topic / proposal for a few minutes of feedback to get a measure on interest
[15:16] <tdonohue> That sounds like a good idea, mdiggory. It would ensure we all have our eyes on these topics/proposals.
[15:16] <kshepherd> that reminds me of Google Moderator / Uservoice again..
[15:17] <kshepherd> (to get an indication of interest before the meeting happens)
[15:18] <mdiggory> I suspect we will be contending with Test-a-thon issues the rest of this month... and scheduling the first special topics meeting on the first wed of march?
[15:18] * tdonohue thinks mdiggory is reading my mind
[15:19] <tdonohue> I was just about to type that I'd like to propose having an initial special topics meeting concentrating on our Release Process that first Weds of March...
[15:20] <tdonohue> it may not be the *only* meeting, as some of these proposals would require some non-techical, repo manager support....but, it would provide us time to review each and give some initial comments, etc
[15:21] <tdonohue> Until that time, I'd encourage everyone to try and gather your thoughts, read over the two proposals already up on this page (http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/Proposals), and also feel free to add your own proposal/brainstorms to the wiki as well
[15:21] <mdiggory> yea, its either "buzz" or your music library channel on last.fm that now has us psychically aligned
[15:22] <mdiggory> What is the difference between a proposal and a special topic?
[15:22] <mdiggory> other than the obvious effort the author put into producing the proposal
[15:23] <tdonohue> In my mind -- special topic is just : "we need to discuss this topic". Proposal is "I've got an idea I think may be worth considering"
[15:23] <tdonohue> So, you'll notice the Special Topics page is all questions: http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/Special_Topics
[15:24] <tdonohue> Whereas, the Proposals page is proposed solutions or ideas: http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/Proposals
[15:24] <tdonohue> That was my thinking...but, if this doesn't make sense to others, let me know! :)
[15:24] <mdiggory> Q&A ;-)
[15:25] <tdonohue> yep. exactly.
[15:25] <tdonohue> Ok. Unless there are any other questions about this, I'd like to move on to a Jira review (which we haven't done now for a month---eek!)
[15:26] <mdiggory> gulp...
[15:26] * bradmc (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[15:26] * bradmc (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[15:26] <tdonohue> Here's the list of issues: http://jira.dspace.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10020&resolution=-1&created%3Aprevious=-6w&status=1&assigneeSelect=&sorter/field=created&sorter/order=ASC
[15:26] <tdonohue> The last issue we reviewed was DS-454
[15:27] <tdonohue> So, we'd be starting with DS-456....ready? (i'll go ahead and post up the issues)
[15:27] <tdonohue> Create easy upgrade scripts (e.g. 'dspace upgrade 1.6 1.7'), likely in Java : http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-456
[15:28] <grahamtriggs> One for the Proposals page :)
[15:29] <mdiggory> Ponders how this releates to System /Health / Check proposal someone made awhile back
[15:29] <mdiggory> was that tansely?
[15:29] <mdiggory> at DSUG?
[15:30] <tdonohue> hmmm...checking...I made a similar system check proposal that I think is also in Jira somewhere
[15:30] <mhwood> OK, how *does* it relate?
[15:31] <mdiggory> relates in that it would be good to measure the state of the system prior to running upgrades...
[15:31] <mdiggory> IE don't try to make a new db table if it already exists etc
[15:31] <mhwood> Ah. Upgrade runs health check and bails on any issues.
[15:32] <tdonohue> I'm taking too long to find it...I'll set this one aside and link off the Proposals page, and find that relating system check issue. I agree these are interrelated and should be linked up somehow
[15:32] <mdiggory> also think about the way folks like scottatm develop addons like Vireo...
[15:32] <mdiggory> where they write the utilities to create the db tables into the codebase
[15:33] <mhwood> Yes, we have good Java modularity, but now we need to look at other aspects.
[15:33] <tdonohue> we probably should just table this for now... I agree there's a lot involved.... moving on...
[15:33] <scottatm> hi... I read my name mentioned?
[15:33] <mdiggory> I totally agree, important to configuration, databases etc
[15:34] <tdonohue> http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-457 "When a Workflow group is updated, existing Tasks still have the same set of Epersons authorized to take task."
[15:34] <grahamtriggs> oh... what was the project that just lets you do it in XML?
[15:34] <mdiggory> I was chatting about verio's creating tables etc in the codebase...
[15:35] <mdiggory> as a mechanism we might want to consider for managing db upgrading etc
[15:35] <richardrodgers> 457 looks like a feature request more than a bug
[15:35] <mdiggory> grahamtriggs: Elliot is using that
[15:36] <mhwood> The underlying problem is that access is granted by value, not by reference. IIRC there are a number of places where people complain that old permissions have "stuck" to things when they should track changes in roles and permissions.
[15:36] <tdonohue> yep. I agree with both mhwood and richardrodgers on DS-457 - looks like a new feature request, as a lot of things behave this way
[15:37] <mhwood> It's not a bug; it's a misfeature. :-)
[15:37] <tdonohue> good point...where is that setting in Jira (kidding) :)
[15:37] <grahamtriggs> mdiggory: http://www.liquibase.org/
[15:37] <mhwood> Seriously, it was designed one way, and it works properly that way, but people seem to want it to work another way. "Improvement request"
[15:38] <tdonohue> http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-459 : OAI PMH is not delivering continuation tokens
[15:38] <mdiggory> this seems a critical issue to harvesting...
[15:38] <mdiggory> It needs confirmation.
[15:38] <richardrodgers> I thought this was fixed???
[15:39] <tdonohue> although it looks like stuartlewis tested and couldn't verify in 1.6
[15:39] <mdiggory> from other institutions
[15:39] <mhwood> Needs wider testing to confirm fixed in 1.6?
[15:39] <richardrodgers> can we ping stuart on this later?
[15:39] <tdonohue> Ok, will mark DS-459 as needs more testing/verification (maybe during Testathon!)-- may be resolved
[15:39] <mdiggory> yes, this would be a good testathon activity
[15:40] <tdonohue> http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-462 : Rend attribute in XREF does not display
[15:41] <mdiggory> things like this should just get commited IMO... bt a patch would be more approrpriate
[15:41] <tdonohue> needs a volunteer to look at
[15:41] <mdiggory> give it to me
[15:41] <tdonohue> ok, assign DS-462 to mdiggory
[15:42] <tdonohue> http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-463 : Collection administrator help page not linked in some places
[15:43] <tdonohue> DS-463 is a bigger issue. we need improved and updated help docs in general (i've had side conversations with jtrimble about this)
[15:43] <richardrodgers> so mark post 1.6?
[15:44] <mhwood> Yes, would be nice if there was a patch already, but can release without this.
[15:44] <tdonohue> yea, it doesn't sound serious enough to me, and no patch
[15:45] <tdonohue> so, we can mark post 1.6 for now
[15:45] <tdonohue> http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-464 : Item type based submission
[15:46] <richardrodgers> Good idea, but too late to integrate into an RC
[15:46] <mhwood> Agree.
[15:46] <tdonohue> yea, definitely too late for 1.6, but sounds like a great idea for later
[15:46] <kshepherd> even if it's not in trunk, could it be up in SVN somewhere?
[15:47] <kshepherd> (is it already?)
[15:47] <tdonohue> it isn't yet, though it could be added to /sandbox/ area....volunteers?
[15:48] <mdiggory> I think we want to look at Item Tpye based submission as a review project, looking at multiple solutions
[15:48] <mdiggory> because we have seen multiple requests and activities to create it
[15:48] <richardrodgers> Sure, I was going to work with Robin on this - as mdiggory says, with multiple options
[15:48] <tdonohue> sounds great, I'll assign DS-464 to richardrodgers then
[15:49] <tdonohue> these next two DS-465 and DS-466 are sandbox projects (which I'm working on)...
[15:49] <mdiggory> I would like to see an opportunity to really get the requirements identified before any one solution is selected.
[15:50] <richardrodgers> mdiggory: which are you referring to?
[15:50] <mhwood> Yeah, it sounds like a feature that various people will imagine differently. We need to surround as many imaginations as is practical.
[15:50] <grahamtriggs> and it could/should be linked to file driven submission - identification of which leads to different (pre-filled where possible) forms
[15:50] <mdiggory> type based submission
[15:51] <richardrodgers> Ah ok - What I have in mind is an abstraction that takes any factor and maps to an input
[15:51] <kshepherd> type-based submission is probably the most common request from my admins since i started my job...
[15:51] <richardrodgers> factor = type, collection, eperson, complex function of above, etc
[15:52] <grahamtriggs> phase of the moon :)
[15:52] <mdiggory> Not trying to get into the technical discussion here, just that it would be good to have the discussion
[15:52] <tdonohue> well, based on all this, maybe type-based submission could be a nice new feature for 1.7 :)
[15:52] <mhwood> Is that a Special Topic or a Proposal?
[15:53] <kshepherd> it's a special topic that might result in a few different proposals?
[15:53] <mdiggory> mhwood: 9.9
[15:53] <richardrodgers> I'll post a proposal to start, how's that :)
[15:53] <tdonohue> kshepherd has got it. it's a topic, and we need to investigate on how to implement :)
[15:53] <tdonohue> yep, sounds good richardrodgers
[15:54] <mdiggory> topic "Item Based Submission".... Proposals = possible solutions.
[15:54] <mdiggory> topic should have some details about the problem domain.
[15:54] <mdiggory> proposals should present solutions to problem domain
[15:55] <tdonohue> thanks mdiggory...that's a good explaination
[15:55] <mdiggory> feel free to copy/paste without attribution ;-)
[15:56] <grahamtriggs> *ahem*... I suggest "Content Driven Submission"... it has more scope, and is technically a bit more accurate (you can argue all submissions are already item based!!)
[15:56] <tdonohue> In essence of time, I'm going to skip DS-465 and DS-466 -- these are sandbox projects to bring the old MIT AIP work back up to date....I'd appreciate input or help from anyone who is interested, but we don't have enough time to go into the details here :)
[15:56] <mdiggory> Per 465 / 466 : I'm also wondering about RichardR's pluggable assestorage solution... when are we going to get that in?
[15:57] <tdonohue> good question, mdiggory. Depends.. how ready is it?
[15:57] <richardrodgers> We should add that as a topic - Fedora Akubra work relevant
[15:57] <mdiggory> We used it on a project... seems to work just fine
[15:57] <mhwood> Yes, would not like seeing that left behind, if only to disentangle the SRB stuff a bit.
[15:57] <mdiggory> fairly simple changes
[15:57] <tdonohue> richardrodgers : can you add that as a topic
[15:58] <tdonohue> (and link to other relevant stuff)
[15:58] <richardrodgers> tdonohue: will do
[15:59] <grahamtriggs> Could there be implications around DuraCloud?
[15:59] <tdonohue> yes, I think this all has implications around DuraCloud
[15:59] * jtrimble (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Quit: Leaving)
[15:59] <richardrodgers> indeed - that's why I raised to
[15:59] <mdiggory> likewise
[15:59] <richardrodgers> to -> it
[16:00] <tdonohue> currently, Fedora folks are working on an Akubra -> DuraCloud plugin...if we plugged into Akubra better, that would also plug us into DuraCloud through there
[16:01] <tdonohue> In addition, DS-466 is specifically geared towards an early way to plugin to DuraCloud...it essentially just exports AIPs for Community/Collections/Items that could then be "backed up" to the cloud or anywhere else
[16:01] <mdiggory> big +10000 on Akubra
[16:02] <grahamtriggs> communities / collections - that's going to have implications with the work I'm doing in metadata-prototype
[16:02] <mdiggory> grahamtriggs: whats that?
[16:03] * tdonohue realizes we are over time. let's stop there on Jira issues...feel free to logoff if you need...or continue if you want
[16:03] <grahamtriggs> extending the metadata (value) table, so that it can be applied to any DSpaceObject, not just Items. Primarily, so that Communities and Collections can have all their data driven off metadata entries.
[16:04] <tdonohue> grahamtriggs: it'd be helpful for you to write up what you are doing with your prototype (even in a Jira issue)... the more public we can all be about our prototypes, the easier it will be to work through overlaps :)
[16:04] <mdiggory> Ah, thats where we were heading with 2.0
[16:04] <grahamtriggs> It's good for having an extensible way of describing a collection - although I need it now for having data about collections and communities in multiple languages
[16:05] <mhwood> I recall there was someone at OR09 who had a need for that too.
[16:06] <mhwood> (Clearly many sites would use it.)
[16:06] <grahamtriggs> yes, although 2.0 was also breaking down the distinction of communities and collections away from concrete java objects and allowing an extensible hierarchy. I don't need to go that far yet.
[16:07] <grahamtriggs> by doing the simple extension of metadatavalue to resource_id / resource_type_id linking, we get some side benefits beyond my requirements... like metadata directly on bitstreams
[16:08] * mhwood thinks Bundle is a special case of that.
[16:09] <mdiggory> Another excellent "Special Topic + Proposal"?
[16:09] <tdonohue> definitely.
[16:09] <mhwood> Yes
[16:10] <richardrodgers> have to run - thanks all
[16:10] * richardrodgers (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: richardrodgers)
[16:14] <tdonohue> This also brings back up the point of these various prototypes/modules and how we can perhaps better support/promote them using the current infrastructure (Jira, SVN, etc.).
[16:15] <mhwood> Sorry, I need to go too.
[16:16] * mhwood (~mhwood@2001:18e8:3:171:218:8bff:fe2a:56a4) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[16:16] <tdonohue> oh, in case it wasn't clear, official meeting is closed. we are just in unofficial chat mode now :)
[16:45] * keithg (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has left #duraspace
[17:55] * bradmc (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: bradmc)
[17:55] * mdiggory (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[17:55] * mdiggory (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[18:06] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has left #duraspace
[18:24] * mdiggory (~email@example.com) has left #duraspace
[18:35] * grahamtriggs (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Quit: grahamtriggs)
[18:41] * bradmc (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[23:14] * mdiggory_ (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[23:14] * bradmc (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: bradmc)
[23:23] * mdiggory_ (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has left #duraspace
These logs were automatically created by DuraLogBot on irc.freenode.net using the Java IRC LogBot.