The meeting was reopened to discuss Sourcemage 1.0 and XFree86.
CuZnDragon
Robin Cook
(Time in US CST)
Mar 07 11:19:40 <Bernardo> well, if there is still everyone here, we can reopen the meeting and discuss 1.0 Mar 07 11:20:35 <rycee> Oh and XFree86. Mar 07 11:20:39 <ruskie> :)) Mar 07 11:21:08 <rycee> This is the point in a meeting my brain normally kicks in. Mar 07 11:21:24 <ruskie> lol Mar 07 11:21:57 <dufflebunk> The only time you want me to be team lead is if you want a horribly broken set of scripts. Mar 07 11:22:00 <sandalle> any nays for reopening? Mar 07 11:22:40 <rycee> Nay Mar 07 11:22:48 <sandalle> heh Mar 07 11:23:01 <rycee> Well, the 1.0 issue needs to be cleared out I guess. Mar 07 11:23:05 <sandalle> we already discussed them on the ML anyways... Mar 07 11:23:06 <rycee> So I say yay Mar 07 11:23:09 <qnr> that's just confusing... is that a nay to nays? Mar 07 11:23:11 <sandalle> alright Mar 07 11:23:23 <sandalle> So, what to do about Sorcery 1.0? Mar 07 11:23:47 <qnr> don' Mar 07 11:23:59 <qnr> t rush it out the door to meet a timetable Mar 07 11:24:17 <rycee> Oh, didn't Schabell say he was gonna update the timeline. Perhaps it's best to wait until he's done that and then talk about it on the mailing lists? Mar 07 11:25:02 <alley_cat> i think we need to do what hamish did for the iso, agree on a set of features we want for the 1.0, then release when those features are met Mar 07 11:25:09 <sandalle> qnr: Agreed. We don't have to meet any shareholder's, but I would like to have some PR Mar 07 11:25:10 <qnr> gonna be a lot of people stopping by when they see on distrowatch that it hit 1.0 ... be a shame if they were met with problems that could have been fixed Mar 07 11:25:24 <sandalle> qnr: Yep Mar 07 11:25:26 <sandalle> alley_cat: I agree Mar 07 11:25:40 <sandalle> alley_cat: It should be a list of what we want in it, and that's when 1.0 is released, not a certain date Mar 07 11:25:54 <alley_cat> sandalle: exactly Mar 07 11:26:01 <sandalle> rycee: But we didn't talk about any timetable...we could wait Mar 07 11:26:09 <dufflebunk> 1.0 will have to wait for devel sorcery to shape up. Mar 07 11:26:24 <rycee> Yeah, I think the feature target is best. Mar 07 11:27:05 <sandalle> dufflebunk: yes, there are too many bugs in stable Sorcery to call 1.0, IMO Mar 07 11:28:10 <dufflebunk> sandalle: The new depends stuff has some problems, other than that, I think it's good. Mar 07 11:28:56 <sandalle> dufflebunk: It worked somewhat okay for me, but yes, it had a few bugs (already documented). ;) Mar 07 11:29:03 <sandalle> So should there be no timeline for Sorcery features? Mar 07 11:29:17 <sandalle> We just putup a list and say "1.0 will have these when we get to it"? Mar 07 11:29:20 <knot_here> http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=Meeting+log+2004-03-07 Mar 07 11:29:27 <dkowis> bah! If we have a timeline, we're just going to blow it anyway :) Mar 07 11:29:37 <CuZnDragon> I would say more of a roadmap/milestones that a time line. Mar 07 11:29:44 <dufflebunk> sandalle: Don't ask me, I'm not lead ;) that's what bugzilla's feature catagory is for Mar 07 11:30:08 <Bernardo> I'd agree with that - milestones and a roadmap, if not a full timeline Mar 07 11:30:14 <knot_here> i stopped logging should i relog? Mar 07 11:30:36 <dkowis> knot_here: looks that way Mar 07 11:30:37 <Bernardo> I think we should have something at least close to a timeline, realistic, but a set of objectives Mar 07 11:30:39 <CuZnDragon> Still logging here if needed Mar 07 11:30:47 <sandalle> knot_here: We can just paste the new stuff to the end Mar 07 11:30:50 <sandalle> knot_here: Thanks for putting it up. ;) Mar 07 11:31:01 <knot_here> CuZnDragon: can you do it Mar 07 11:31:25 <sandalle> Bernardo: But how would we decide a realistic timeline? We tried that once, and we're here now Mar 07 11:31:27 <CuZnDragon> Humm would have to look how as I have not done anything with wiki. Mar 07 11:31:43 <dkowis> cuzndragon: it's painfully easy Mar 07 11:32:12 <Bernardo> sandalle: where r Mar 07 11:32:14 <qnr> break it into goals for items, not for the whole project? Mar 07 11:32:30 <Bernardo> sandalle: where are we now? What are the goals for 1.0? How far away are they? Mar 07 11:32:38 <CuZnDragon> But yeah I think I can add it. Mar 07 11:32:40 <sandalle> Bernardo: We don't know Mar 07 11:32:56 <sandalle> Bernardo: But 1.0 was supposed to be out last month, with whatever is listed as it's feature set Mar 07 11:32:59 <Bernardo> ok, let's start it easy: what are our goals to 1.0? Mar 07 11:33:05 <sandalle> Bernardo: But 1.0 isn't out, since we don't feel it's ready Mar 07 11:33:08 <dkowis> sandalle: oooh. bad thing for a PL to say ;) Mar 07 11:33:14 <lace> if hamish plan to leave us after 1.0 we should never release it :-)) Mar 07 11:33:15 <knot_here> get most of the bugs fixed in the grimoire Mar 07 11:33:23 <dkowis> hah Mar 07 11:33:39 <knot_here> ;) Mar 07 11:33:48 <knot_here> i'll just keep making more okay? Mar 07 11:33:49 <alley_cat> grimoire bug count definitely needs to go down a lot, prometheus is spamming everyone :) Mar 07 11:33:50 <Bernardo> is 1.0 going to be what we have now, with a fixed (no more features) sorcery, fixed grimoire, and fixed iso? Mar 07 11:33:56 <dkowis> knot_here: sounds good Mar 07 11:34:06 <knot_here> i want more features in sorcery Mar 07 11:34:10 <sandalle> knot_here: Bugs help Mar 07 11:34:20 <alley_cat> what i want in the grimoire for 1.0 is full support for kernel 2.6 and my new device setup Mar 07 11:34:20 <dkowis> I want stability Mar 07 11:34:31 <sandalle> Bernardo: I'd say yes. Fix what we have now in devel Sorcery and release a 1.0 Mar 07 11:34:44 <dkowis> I think that it's got enough features to make a decent system install Mar 07 11:34:45 <Bernardo> with udev or devfs? Mar 07 11:34:47 <sandalle> alley_cat: Yes, 1.0 with with /dev would be nice Mar 07 11:34:55 <dkowis> you can set it up and it will work for a long time Mar 07 11:34:56 <alley_cat> Bernardo: static, udev or devfs, at the users choice Mar 07 11:35:12 <dkowis> I installed off an older iso, to build a bridge, and it's been up 109 days Mar 07 11:35:19 <sandalle> So, are we agreed that 1.0 should be what we have in devel Sorcery (plus alley_cat's fixes) after the bugs are fixed? Mar 07 11:35:25 <Bernardo> so, we can agree on current features, alley_cat's /dev, and fixed/uptodate stable grimoire? Mar 07 11:35:30 <alley_cat> it's already working, only thing missing is some code to map devfs device names to static names for fstab editing Mar 07 11:35:56 <dufflebunk> There is an additional script that'll be going into sorcery, and some fixes, that's all for 1.0 Mar 07 11:35:58 <Bernardo> alley_cat: can't you get that out of /etc/devfsd.conf? Mar 07 11:36:09 <dkowis> sounds like a plan :D Mar 07 11:36:29 <lace> stable grimoire should be more up to date, for example no mozilla 1.4 Mar 07 11:36:32 <Bernardo> ok, so what about xfree86? Do we release with xfree86 4.3.0.1? Mar 07 11:36:35 <alley_cat> Bernardo: the problem is mapping stuff like /dev/ide/host0/bus0/target1/lun0 to hdb Mar 07 11:36:53 <Bernardo> alley_cat: doesn't devfsd do that, based on rules from devfsd.conf? Mar 07 11:36:55 <sandalle> lace: Agreed. We need a Stable Grimoire maintainer, but who'll do it? Mar 07 11:37:00 <alley_cat> Bernardo: i don't see a way to do it in bash without a very big list of device mappings, and i don't have any idea about awk Mar 07 11:37:07 <sandalle> wait guys Mar 07 11:37:13 <sandalle> First thing's first. Mar 07 11:37:15 <sandalle> Sorcery 1.0 Mar 07 11:37:21 <sandalle> Then we can talk about XFree86 Mar 07 11:37:22 <sandalle> ;) Mar 07 11:37:30 <dufflebunk> That's actualy 1.9, not 1.0 Mar 07 11:37:31 <sandalle> So, Sorcery 1.0, what features do we want? Mar 07 11:37:37 <sandalle> heh Mar 07 11:37:40 <sandalle> dufflebunk: Thanks. ;) Mar 07 11:37:43 <sandalle> Sorcery 1.9 Mar 07 11:37:49 <sandalle> What features do we want Mar 07 11:38:10 <dufflebunk> No more features, just the cleaning script and fixes. That's what we've been shooting for. Mar 07 11:38:12 <alley_cat> i'm happy with the current sorcery features Mar 07 11:38:22 <Bernardo> should we wait until we have a replacement for cast --fix and gaze prune? Mar 07 11:38:31 <dufflebunk> Bernardo: that's in the cleaning script Mar 07 11:38:37 <rycee> I think the xinetd.d and init.d script handling should improve. I'd like to work on that but haven't had time. Mar 07 11:38:52 <knot_here> i think the dispel code needs some improvement Mar 07 11:39:16 <sandalle> Okay, so we want the cleaning functions moved out, devel Sorcery fixed up, xinetd.d/init.d cleanup, dispel cleanup, and then 1.0? Mar 07 11:39:22 <sandalle> Anything specific in there? Mar 07 11:39:27 <sandalle> Volunteers? Mar 07 11:39:31 <Bernardo> I'd stay with cleaning script and fixes Mar 07 11:39:35 <rycee> I think sorcery works quite reliably so far. Mar 07 11:39:42 <dkowis> rycee: ditto Mar 07 11:39:42 <sandalle> rycee: Agreed Mar 07 11:39:51 <sandalle> I believe that once devel Sorcery is cleaned up, we could release a 1.0 Mar 07 11:39:52 <dufflebunk> I'm working on the cleaning stuff, bug 6306 for anyone who want to try them Mar 07 11:40:19 <sandalle> 1.8 is working for all my needs, and devel adds a few nice things (ordering) that I'd like Mar 07 11:40:28 <sandalle> Plus a few bugs that annoy me (and others) Mar 07 11:41:01 <sandalle> That's what Schabell was trying to do, shuffle everything that was a feature request off until later so we could make Sorcery stable stable (sic) and release a new version Mar 07 11:41:15 <dufflebunk> We may not be able to get rid of the circular target warnings. Mar 07 11:41:18 <sandalle> Hamish's 1.0 ISO looks like it'll be really nice, so that'll be good to go Mar 07 11:43:14 <sandalle> So, any nays for this: Fix the bugs (not feature requests or enhancements) in devel Sorcery and release it as 1.9. Mar 07 11:43:34 <qnr> big jump :) Mar 07 11:43:40 <qnr> sounds good to me Mar 07 11:43:54 <sandalle> any others? Mar 07 11:44:19 <dufflebunk> Documentation? Mar 07 11:44:33 <sandalle> dkowis is working on the bashdoc stuff Mar 07 11:44:37 <sandalle> Should we require that for 1.9? Mar 07 11:44:48 <dufflebunk> No, just thought I'd mention it. Mar 07 11:45:07 <sandalle> Anything specific about it you'd like to mention? Mar 07 11:45:10 <dufflebunk> I wqas thinking more along lines of install HOWTOs, better documentation of the tools and how to use them Mar 07 11:45:36 <dkowis> as soon as regular work slows down I'll get back on it Mar 07 11:45:37 <dufflebunk> I haven't looked at the documentation for some time, so I've no idea what state it's in. Mar 07 11:46:01 <dkowis> there has to be documentation to look at, before it can have a state ;) Mar 07 11:46:02 <sandalle> dufflebunk: Good ideas Mar 07 11:46:25 <sandalle> There /is/ documentation on Sorcery and an howto install SMGL, they're just a little old Mar 07 11:46:41 <dkowis> I know, I know, i was just being a jerk :P Mar 07 11:47:10 <sandalle> ;) Mar 07 11:47:11 <dkowis> It's something I should be working on anways Mar 07 11:47:25 <sandalle> Okay, so we're agreed on that general statement for Sorcery. ;) Mar 07 11:47:32 <sandalle> Now XFree86... Mar 07 11:47:40 <sandalle> I haven't read the license, so all my information is hearsay Mar 07 11:48:02 <knot_here> are there other free X's? Mar 07 11:48:14 <dufflebunk> Update it. We violate nothing, it's still an OSS type licence, even if it is incompatable with the GPL. Mar 07 11:48:22 <dufflebunk> knot_here: Nope. Mar 07 11:48:28 <alley_cat> nothing that's usable anyway Mar 07 11:48:32 <Bernardo> Y is still not stable... There are a few others Mar 07 11:48:38 <CuZnDragon> Same here and I can't seem to pin down what exactly is the conflict with GPL that people have. Mar 07 11:48:44 <alley_cat> we should go for xfree 4.4, i don't see any big problem with it Mar 07 11:48:45 <sandalle> dufflebunk: That's how I see it. Mar 07 11:48:54 <sandalle> knot_here: I've put in Y, but it doesn't do much Mar 07 11:48:55 <qnr> especially for source Mar 07 11:49:12 <qnr> from what I've heard the main problem is for binary distros Mar 07 11:49:13 <sandalle> CuZnDragon: There is no conflict, since it's just the BSD license Mar 07 11:49:19 <dufflebunk> We may want to keep the current spell in the grimoire for those vocal people who don't want the latest. Mar 07 11:49:23 <treeve> I have a working 4.4.0 spell. I just installed it on my son's machine Mar 07 11:49:26 <dkowis> ooooh Mar 07 11:49:30 <sandalle> All it says (from what I've heard) is that you have to credit X if you link against their code Mar 07 11:49:39 <dkowis> treeve: post it somewhere I'll try it :) Mar 07 11:49:46 <sandalle> dufflebunk: They could put xfree86 on hold Mar 07 11:49:50 <Bernardo> sandalle: that seems to be where it breaks gpl Mar 07 11:49:59 <dufflebunk> sandalle: Hard to do for new installs ;) Mar 07 11:50:06 <CuZnDragon> I am running on 4.4.0 as well. Mar 07 11:50:21 <sandalle> Bernardo: So then they're against BSD licenses, not X specifically, yet they're picking on X? Mar 07 11:50:34 <sandalle> dufflebunk: True... Mar 07 11:50:52 * qnr remembers the old BSD license where you have to have 20 or 30 credits to BSD in an advertisement... luckily they wised up on that Mar 07 11:50:56 <sandalle> Peopel were saying not to update to make a statement from SMGL...but what would that statement be? Mar 07 11:51:06 <CuZnDragon> I thought they put the libraries that would be linked against outside that license? Mar 07 11:51:08 <Bernardo> no, it's the demand that you credit X - it can very quickly get unmanageable if everyone adds that to it's software Mar 07 11:51:08 <sandalle> That we don't like giving credit? Mar 07 11:51:13 <sandalle> CuZnDragon: They did Mar 07 11:51:18 <sandalle> CuZnDragon: It's only the server code, IIRC. Mar 07 11:51:30 <alley_cat> i don't see the point sticking to 4.3, which has several bugs, especially related to keyboard handling Mar 07 11:51:32 <sandalle> Bernardo: Where do you have to credit? Mar 07 11:51:39 <alley_cat> and none of the alternatives are there yet Mar 07 11:51:48 <sandalle> Bernardo: Just in the code you write? Every time X loads? Every time you boot? Mar 07 11:52:00 <CuZnDragon> Any manuals I think had to have a credit for XFree. Mar 07 11:52:12 <sandalle> well that's not bad... Mar 07 11:52:16 <alley_cat> all of that doesn't apply to us anyway Mar 07 11:52:25 <alley_cat> we don't distribute xfree Mar 07 11:52:34 <dufflebunk> sandalle: To answer that question, we have the license itself. UTSL Mar 07 11:53:44 <sandalle> So we'd be fine to update to 4.4, which fixes bugs Mar 07 11:53:49 <sandalle> I like bug fixes Mar 07 11:53:51 <Bernardo> I think we can go ahead and update to 4.4 Mar 07 11:53:52 <sandalle> I don't like bugs Mar 07 11:54:01 <sandalle> Any nays for updating to 4.4 in devel/test? Mar 07 11:54:23 <CuZnDragon> fine here. Mar 07 11:54:26 <knot_here> i think there should be an xfree86-4.3 spell for those who are opposed Mar 07 11:54:35 <sandalle> or xfree86-free? Mar 07 11:54:46 <alley_cat> xfree86-free would be misleading Mar 07 11:54:47 <sandalle> or perhaps put the option in the xfree86 spell? Mar 07 11:54:53 <sandalle> alley_cat: true Mar 07 11:54:58 <sandalle> instead of making yet another X spell Mar 07 11:55:30 <alley_cat> i think a seperate spell is ok, the xfree spell already has so many options Mar 07 11:55:44 <sandalle> true Mar 07 11:55:51 <sandalle> So no nays then? And xfree86-4.3 is okay? Mar 07 11:56:04 <rycee> The new license is free. Mar 07 11:56:07 <alley_cat> and all the infrastructure with X11-LIBS/X11-SERVER is in place, so nothing else would need to be changed Mar 07 11:56:12 <rycee> It's just not GPL compatible. Mar 07 11:56:34 <sandalle> treeve: Thanks for the post. ;) Mar 07 11:56:49 <sandalle> okay then, looks like we're agreed Mar 07 11:56:51 <rycee> But since FSF convinced them to not apply the new license to their libraries no problem should exist. Mar 07 11:57:01 <sandalle> treeve: Care to copy xfree86 to xfree86-4.3 and update xfree86 to your 4.4? Mar 07 11:57:39 <treeve> ok Mar 07 11:57:50 <rycee> Oh, one final thing from me. We need a consistent way to deprecate spells and rename spells. Mar 07 11:57:53 <sandalle> treeve: And pull it into test so people can play. ;) Thanks. Mar 07 11:58:04 <sandalle> rycee: Agreed Mar 07 11:58:07 <Bernardo> that reminds me on what I don't like of the new libdepends Mar 07 11:58:10 <sandalle> I'd like to propose this method: (long) Mar 07 11:59:06 <sandalle> Add BUILD, PRE_BUILD, POST_INSTALL, etc. files with "true" in them. Change DEPENDS to only include the new name of the spell. Add the new spell with a CONFLICTS for the old. That should be it. Mar 07 11:59:10 <sandalle> Integrate into the grimoires Mar 07 11:59:16 <sandalle> And after 1 month, remove the old one. Mar 07 11:59:18 <sandalle> Sound good? Mar 07 11:59:36 <Bernardo> yep Mar 07 11:59:47 <rycee> sandalle: The problem is, will the spell be dispelled then? Mar 07 11:59:48 <Bernardo> but what about /var/state/sorcery/depends? Mar 07 11:59:49 <alley_cat> yep, that's the way i've been doing it Mar 07 11:59:57 <rycee> sandalle: I think you need prepare_install in BUILD to do that. Mar 07 12:00:21 <alley_cat> the spell will be dispelled by the new spells CONFLICTS Mar 07 12:00:22 <rycee> But then again we probably don't want to force dispelling of it. Mar 07 12:00:32 <rycee> Ah, correct. Mar 07 12:00:35 * rycee stupid Mar 07 12:00:52 <sandalle> Bernardo: What about it? Mar 07 12:01:10 <Bernardo> have you switched back and forth between xfree86 and xfree86-devel recently? Mar 07 12:01:12 <sandalle> So I'll add that to the post. alley_cat, care to add that to the Grimoire section of the wiki? ;) Mar 07 12:01:17 <sandalle> Bernardo: No... Mar 07 12:01:22 <CuZnDragon> Bernado: The guru will need to update all spells that depend on it with the new depends... Mar 07 12:01:27 * sandalle just uses xfree86-devel since it compiles with 2.6 Mar 07 12:01:30 <alley_cat> sandalle: will do Mar 07 12:01:58 <Bernardo> the new libdepends stuff starts giving a lot of errors - missing dependencies - for the spell that got replaced by another that provides the same Mar 07 12:02:13 <sandalle> alley_cat: hmm, that only works for renaming Mar 07 12:02:29 <rycee> We probably should add a note in PREPARE saying "This spell has been deprecated and has therefore been replaced by XYZ." Mar 07 12:02:31 <sandalle> for deprecating, I propose we do the same, but have it conflict with itself (still with empty BUILD, etc.) Mar 07 12:02:35 <sandalle> rycee: Good idea Mar 07 12:02:44 <alley_cat> sandalle: yeah Mar 07 12:02:45 <Bernardo> /var/state/sorcery/depends should be updated when replacing a spell with another that provides the same Mar 07 12:02:57 <rycee> dufflebunk also made the suggestion that the grimoire ChangeLog should be updated. Mar 07 12:03:28 <alley_cat> yes, that's what the grimoire changelog is for Mar 07 12:03:40 <sandalle> rycee: That's a good idea that I've been bad on keeping up on. ;) Mar 07 12:03:49 <alley_cat> i'll put all of this together and put it in the wiki and the grimoire gurus handbook Mar 07 12:03:58 <sandalle> alley_cat: Thanks. :) Mar 07 12:04:07 <sandalle> oh yeah, and UPDATED should be updated on the new/removed spell Mar 07 12:04:11 * qnr thinks there needs to be better integration of sorcery changes with the wiki... but has no idea how to implement it... Mar 07 12:04:28 <sandalle> qnr: The documentation? Mar 07 12:04:58 <qnr> sandalle, yes, so the spellwriting handbook could be updated, for example, or FAQs Mar 07 12:06:17 <alley_cat> i'm planning to rewrite the spellbook in docbook, but that'll have to wait until my current uni project is finished (middle of april) Mar 07 12:07:47 <sandalle> Sounds good then. Mar 07 12:07:58 <sandalle> Onto the 1.0 release (we just talked about Sorcery earlier). Mar 07 12:08:06 <sandalle> What should we have as the features for 1.0? Mar 07 12:08:11 <sandalle> And when should it be released? Mar 07 12:08:37 <sandalle> ISOs are already released every month, should we continue this and use that for our timeline? Mar 07 12:09:01 <dufflebunk> Bah, I have to go away for work, the cleaning script is going to be delayed unless someone else wants to work on it. Mar 07 12:09:10 <dufflebunk> I'l be gone for at least a week. Mar 07 12:09:40 <alley_cat> i think we should continue with monthly isos Mar 07 12:09:57 <sandalle> dufflebunk: We're not in a rush anymore. ;) Mar 07 12:10:08 <sandalle> alley_cat: Agreed Mar 07 12:10:43 <sandalle> Should we continue to number the ISOs x.x, or should we start using dates (20030107) and only release a numbered ISO when it reaches a certain feature set? Mar 07 12:10:45 <rycee> Plenty of grimoire bugs needs to be fixed. Mar 07 12:10:56 <sandalle> rycee: verily Mar 07 12:11:21 <rycee> sandalle: Using dates probably fit better if we go for feature based releases. Mar 07 12:11:31 <alley_cat> dates are better imo, hamish is adding quite some features to the iso, so it needs testing before it's 1.0 Mar 07 12:12:27 <sandalle> Agreed Mar 07 12:12:31 <sandalle> Any nays on the versioning? Mar 07 12:14:32 <sandalle> And the not-nays have it! ;) Mar 07 12:14:48 <sandalle> Feature list for 1.0? Shall we wait for Schabell's update and go off that? Mar 07 12:16:07 <rycee> Yes, I prefer that. Also, let people have a while to think it through. It would be silly to come up with a bunch of stuff now and keep on changing it since it's not fully thought through. Mar 07 12:16:23 <CuZnDragon> I don't think he is doing anything with that other than clearing out the roadmap for you to fill in. Mar 07 12:16:35 <CuZnDragon> Mar 07 08:29:58 <erics> also, I will clean out the roadmap tomorrow if I get the chance, will be to-be-announced by new PL, whatever you all decide.... Mar 07 12:18:22 <CuZnDragon> But I also think it needs some time to be thought on. Mar 07 12:18:23 <sandalle> oh. ;) Mar 07 12:18:33 <sandalle> Well, we'll let it stew then. Mar 07 12:18:36 <sandalle> Anything else guys? Mar 07 12:19:12 <CuZnDragon> Nothing that I can think of at the moment. Mar 07 12:19:21 <sandalle> rycee: ? ;) Mar 07 12:19:55 * rycee is happy Mar 07 12:20:02 <swoolley> is the meeting still on? Mar 07 12:20:24 <alley_cat> coming to its second end right now :) Mar 07 12:20:59 <sandalle> We got a second wind Mar 07 12:21:04 <swoolley> ahh Mar 07 12:21:09 * rycee feels guilty Mar 07 12:21:18 <swoolley> I just couldn't wake myself that early. Mar 07 12:21:27 <dkowis> swooley: me neither Mar 07 12:21:50 <sandalle> I only slept 4 hours. ;) Mar 07 12:21:54 <sandalle> well, I'll shall call this second meeting to an end, then.