2009-04-02 Developers Conference Call
Date
2 April 2009
In Attendance
Mike Seaton
Ben Wolfe
Brian McKown
Darius Jazayeri
Burke Mamlin
Justin Miranda
<!--Paul Biondich
Sam Mbugua
-->
Agenda
GSoC
Discuss strategy for reporting (Justin)
Open SVN branching and/or creating a sandbox in svn for people to play with? -Ben 10:45, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
If time permits, otherwise move to next week:
Configuration Properties. See email thread here (Mike)
Localization strategy. See Initial Project Write-up Here (Mike)
Minutes
GSoC
Applications are due tomorrow
We might extend OIP one extra week to get more proposals for that
Tell students to submit now and they can revise after submission.
Strategy for Reporting
Justin/Mike will do planning meeting today
Justin will add reporting timeline google doc and share with everyone
Deprecating Reporting packages or deleting them?
Brian: Leave old tables and data so that backwards movement is possible
Justin: package naming, etc was poor and can't easily be forwarded
Mike: Do it on a case-by-case basis. ie look at data exports vs report_schema_xml
Darius: CohortDefinition vs PatientSearch implements CohortDefinition vs new CohortDefinition in different package. Do we need to support these in the API, or just convert the objects
Mike: migrate data out of report_object to serialization_object. maybe leave the report_object table so people can roll back easily?
Burke: be mindful of people needing to roll back as soon after they try to upgrade. in 1.6 remove the table
Mike: there is a different between data loss and API objects being removed
Mike:
Burke:
Mike: Supporting deprecation for all reporting objects is taking a really long time.
Darius: The reporting stuff wasn't really used at all
Ben: Use google to search for uses: Parameter site:dev.openmrs.org/browse/openmrs-modules
Burke: This is an exception to the 'deprecation' rule because it isn't really used by anyone
Mike: I'll try to be doing it in pieces. Cohort, then parameters, then report, etc. Each code review can then identify pieces that should stay or get the boot
SVN sandbox?
Darius/Burke: people should email code@openmrs before creating the branch
Ben: The email to code is useless and not needed and prevents people from putting up branches
Burke: The community needs to know about the branches and should be notified
Mike: "code@openmrs is not the community"
Darius: modules are different and should always get an email from the developer before starting
Burke: is that true for non "core" developers ?
Darius: If you aren't sure if you create a branch, you should be asking
Ben: if they have commit rights they should be able to commit
Burke: (relenting) full committers should be able to commit and if they are doing something dumb an email tot he dev list should chastise them. The commit message should say about why. an email to the dev list should happen automatically. non full committers should "ok" it with a full committer and should put hte full committer's username into the message so that the dev list knows.
Brian: We need a convention police pseudoname so that not one person has to be the evil one that is holding people to it
Mike: a partial committer should be able to create a branch that is associated with a ticket. a partial committer could create a branch with a message
Darius: who is a partial committer?
Burke: anyone who has a trac account AND has asked code@openmrs for write access.
Brian: where are the conventions?
Burke: we should email the dev list about the new conventions
TODO: make adjustments to the conventions page about branch creation (full committers are free to do it and commit comment should be descriptive, partial committers need to talk to a full committer first and have a descriptive comment + full committer username)
TODO: create svn hook to email dev list if a new branch is created
code@openmrs stays around for asking about modules
Ben: "entropy is inevitable"
Guid work
Darius: we're going to add in the guid stuff
Its going to be called uuid instead of guid
all domain objects are going to extend baseopenmrsdata or base openmrsmetadata
handlers
mike found a magic spring way to use annotations to register handlers instead of using the xml we're doing now
see unnamed link
Darius: is it ok to have ServiceContext extend Spring's ApplicationContextAware ? It makes spring a really strong dependency
Burke/Ben: spring is already bundled tightly so it shouldn't matter
Mike: I want this reviewed on Monday, Damn it! ("damn it" inferred by note taker)