Discussion: ReactOS Meeting Minutes

[Aeneas]

ALLRIGHT!! Thank you for that info - if this is so, I am ardently, yet patiently awaiting the result!

(Just one piece of advice: have your stuff documented, even if not shown to the public; in case of future disagreements...)

[Murmur]

I just don't think its fair for the devs to say "I see that you are interested in what goes on, we won't tell you anything yet even though it happened almost a half a month ago and if you ask too much we won't tell you anything" I think its kind of rude.

I am trying to become a part of ROS but you guys keep cockblocking or ignoring me.

[Murmur]

Thank you

[Bitiquinho]

I think I feel a little sorry .... my question about arwinss brought attention again to this topic, and the discussion started.....

It was just curiosity and, from my part, I don't want to press the devs for any information.... also, you really do a great job !

[Bblaauw]

Decision to integrate arwinss into trunk under a separate directory structure and make it a compile-time option. Passed by majority vote.
Decision to switch main Linux build server to use cmake. Passed by majority vote.

No status reports were done to save time.

Thanks for the feedback/info here, Z98. I'm not sure if this was mentioned in one of the Arwinss discussions, not sure if you're making arwinss default either. But my suggestion would be to compile both normal and arwinss files, have them all on CD, and let user choose at installation time. Just like is done for ACPI HAL.

Goodluck with your CMake build system (even with GRUB "MULTIBOOT" booting likely broken).

[Z98]

It is not the default. And I somehow doubt in the short term the feasibility of being able to have both it and the current win32 subsystem on the same install. No provisions were ever made for that. It may be possible to fudge it with something like SxS, but that's if the devs are willing to make that effort. There remains resistance/reluctance towards arwinss, despite the passing of the vote.

[milon]

Thanks hto & vicmarcal for the updates! I have two questions:

February Minutes, Point 1 - What does CLT stand for?

March Minutes, Point 4 - What problems were caused with a mass mailing? (Not important - I'm just curious.)

Finally, I want to say that I'm excited about the changes to how bugs will be handled. I think it's great that there's going to be literal ownership of bugs, and specific target bugs resolved for each release!

[hto]

What does CLT stand for?

The “Chemnitz Linux Days” (or “Chemnitzer Linux-Tage” in German).

[fred02]

What does CLT stand for?

The “Chemnitz Linux Days” (or “Chemnitzer Linux-Tage” in German).

Tnx.

Slightly off-topic, but may be this discussion should also be linked from the main ReactOS Meeting Minutes header post with a little explanation: "This thread is for minutes only, please post your comments in the thread here".

[BrentNewland]

It should probably be locked, people who need to add to it should be able to do that (moderators+).

[fred02]

It should probably be locked, people who need to add to it should be able to do that (moderators+).

Agreed.
And may be have a link to this thread as a last line of the minutes.

[gonzoMD]

and this thread should be renamed in "Meeting Minute Discussion"

[vicmarcal]

It should probably be locked, people who need to add to it should be able to do that (moderators+).

Agreed.
And may be have a link to this thread as a last line of the minutes.

Done!Thanks!
This Thread:Renamed
ReactOS Meeting:Locked

[PurpleGurl]

I noticed that the intro to the other thread has the word "doubts." Doubts are feelings of skepticism. People ask questions. One is an abstract noun and the other is concrete.

I just hate that the recent meeting brought up so many problems. I love the amount of momentum I am seeing, but I hate seeing the number of regressions. I just hope the ideas on addressing those will work.

[Webunny]

On a more general note: I think it would be a good idea if these ReactOS Meeting Minutes were also accessible directly from the homepage (in the newssection, for instance). It's an ideal tool to show activity and keep the interest going of people visiting the site for new bits of info. (And not everyone is going to plough through the fora to search/find/stumble upon it).

I really think it is underestimated how much influence such a thing can have. When I was visiting the Ros site, prior to becoming a forum member, I ALWAYS checked if there was some news, feeling disappointed if there wasn't again any. I've seen other posts expressing the same thing. In fact, I think A LOT of the more casual people visiting come back in the (idle) hope to read some news or check on the progress. And they do that on the news section of the homepage (no, devs, they don't do that with looking at the changes made in the source code of the latest build/trunk ).

If there is some agreement to this, but no-one is actually taking the first step (a common enough problem in all projects), I'm willing to do it myself, if I get edit-rights to the website.