18:16:50 <stoney> #startmeeting
18:16:50 <tota11y> Meeting started Mon Aug 19 18:16:50 2013 CET.  The chair is stoney. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:16:50 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:16:54 <stoney> Hi
18:17:01 <stoney> Sorry about the delay
18:17:13 <LoganH> Hello :)
18:17:18 <stoney> I forgot that I was taking my daughter to and from a summer camp 9-12 this week
18:17:26 <stoney> Hi LoganH
18:17:31 <stoney> who else is here?
18:18:09 * joanie is
18:18:09 <LoganH> Amber and Joanie were earlier.. Not sure where they are right now
18:18:34 <stoney> ok... let's wait a second more...
18:18:39 <stoney> heidi is over on foss2serve
18:18:49 <stoney> I"ll see if she can join us
18:19:38 <stoney> hi peter!
18:19:47 <pnutzh4x0r> long time, no chat
18:21:03 <stoney> joanie: Heidi can get onto  freenode's #foss2serve, but not here... ideas?
18:21:14 <joanie> error message?
18:21:19 <stoney> asking
18:23:22 <stoney> OK... I don't want to hold everyone up
18:23:45 <stoney> so let's press forward... I'll try to relay heidi's messages as I go
18:24:00 <stoney> (from heidi: Yes, it says connection refused.)
18:24:13 <joanie> have her try a different host
18:24:22 <stoney> sending
18:24:24 <LoganH> Okay.. FYI, I will have to bug out at 12:45 for a meeting
18:24:45 <stoney> #topic status
18:24:59 <stoney> Go ahead and shout out your status as an #info please
18:25:04 <stoney> (everyone)
18:25:18 <stoney> (from heidie: Not sure what other hosts exist?)
18:25:31 <joanie> (we're on irc.eagle.y.se)
18:26:07 <stoney> (she's going to try it)
18:26:49 <stoney> (from heidi: assuming that I can just use an "attach" command followed by the host name, I'm still getting connection refused.)
18:27:14 <stoney> Are people typing in their status?
18:27:21 <LoganH> #info I was having issues with merging Nikki's branch into mine. New files would not being updated locally, so the merge merged nothing. I seemed to have cleared up the issue Friday, and will trying it again tonight. Besides the merge, I am working on the face tracking, and trying to keep the square updated
18:27:30 <stoney> aha... here they come :)
18:28:13 <amber> sorry was making lunch
18:28:51 <stoney> np... please go ahead and give us your status
18:29:16 <amber> not much to report this week, sadly my school work was a bit overwhelming
18:29:36 <stoney> #info stoney has been integrating and trying to figure out what exactly the system is supposed to do
18:29:46 <stoney> oh yes, no problem
18:30:05 * joanie doesn't understand stoney's status
18:30:12 <stoney> #topic Merge Amber's Documentation Changes
18:30:31 <stoney> joanie: We have a box drawing
18:30:42 <stoney> I'm not sure if it is supposed to move
18:30:53 <stoney> all of the videos on youtube don't show a box
18:31:01 <joanie> oh
18:31:04 <stoney> they show a dot in the middle of the forhead
18:31:17 <stoney> I'm wondering if the box is just an initial reference point
18:31:23 <joanie> got it
18:31:24 <stoney> or if it is the visualizatoin of the tracking
18:31:25 <joanie> and not sure
18:31:29 <stoney> right
18:31:30 <amber> the box?
18:31:35 <amber> do you have a pic
18:31:49 <stoney> no... but logan_test should run now
18:31:51 <joanie> but it might be a side effect of the gtk+ stuff
18:32:09 <stoney> I think the box is intensional
18:32:19 <LoganH> The box was commented out in the original code. It was debug tool to show what the coordinates of the face were
18:32:23 <amber> well they use it as a safe box
18:32:33 <amber> when you move within it, it just moves the mouse
18:32:44 <amber> and if you go outside, it has funcitons like click or cancel
18:32:50 <stoney> I was thinking something similar
18:33:14 <amber> hmm maybe were thinking of two things
18:33:17 <stoney> but when I watch the video the "box" you describe amber is invisible and very small, I think
18:33:20 <stoney> not the whole face
18:33:40 <amber> yes, there are pictures in the docs
18:33:58 <stoney> amber: I'll take a closer look at your documentationg....
18:34:08 <stoney> which is why I want it merged into logan_test :)
18:34:21 <stoney> is everyone ok with merging into logan_test?
18:34:26 <joanie> :)
18:34:28 <stoney> I can make that happen
18:34:40 <stoney> if everyone is cool with it
18:34:48 <amber> the docs are in master
18:34:53 <stoney> right
18:35:01 <amber> im fine with that
18:35:09 <stoney> I made a pull request via github from master to logan_test
18:35:20 <stoney> it looks like there are no interferences
18:35:40 <stoney> I tested the merged version and it seams to behave like logan_test before the merge
18:35:42 <stoney> so good?
18:35:51 <LoganH> Sounds good
18:35:54 <amber> yep
18:35:59 <stoney> #agreed stoney will merge master into logan_test
18:36:17 <stoney> #topic merge nikki's GTK3 update into logan_test
18:36:51 * stoney working on what to type :)
18:37:01 <stoney> nikki was working on GTK3 updates
18:37:07 <stoney> GUI stuff mostlye
18:37:22 <stoney> she has completed the work and checked it into nikki branch
18:37:36 <stoney> I made a pull request via github to merge that into logan_test
18:37:53 <stoney> I performed the merge locally and got an error
18:38:03 <stoney> LoganH solved the typo error
18:38:15 <stoney> and the merged version now seams to work
18:38:37 <amber> awesome
18:38:40 <stoney> is everyone ok with merging these in too... assuming no conflicts with ambers stuff?
18:39:17 <LoganH> Good with me
18:39:46 <stoney> (from heidie: I'm having no luck with web-based cclients.)
18:40:22 <stoney> #agreed stoney will merge amber's stuff first, then nikki's (assuming no other errors appear)
18:40:53 <stoney> #topic What's it supposed to do :)
18:41:04 * joanie grins
18:41:07 <stoney> So we discussed this some earlier
18:41:15 <stoney> but I think it's unresolved
18:41:47 <stoney> has anyone seen or have some understanding of how the capture window is supposed to update points?
18:41:59 <stoney> (I don't even know if that makes any sense)
18:42:44 <stoney> maybe I should have asked... does anyone know how objects/points drawn to the capture display are supposed to get updated
18:43:06 <stoney> and... the opencv calls that are supposed to analyze the images for changes/motion?
18:43:30 <stoney> there she is! :)
18:43:49 <heidi> Hi folks!
18:43:56 <joanie> stoney, is that not what LoganH is working on
18:44:02 <joanie> ?
18:44:03 <heidi> This is definitely something about my new machine. I'm on my old machine.
18:44:19 <stoney> joanie: yes...
18:44:31 <stoney> I'm now also trying to make sense of it
18:44:42 <stoney> I'm trying to catch up
18:44:43 <joanie> ah :)
18:44:49 <LoganH> The update of the pointer and moving the mouse happens in the ui/scripts/joystick.py file
18:44:55 <stoney> so I'm wondering how much "we" know already :)
18:45:17 <stoney> #info from LoganH: The update of the pointer and moving the mouse happens in the ui/scripts/joystick.py file
18:45:42 <LoganH> #info It calls "get_pointer" from the idm (forehead.py)
18:45:43 <stoney> does it also update the display?
18:45:52 <stoney> ok... cool
18:46:10 <LoganH> A different thread updates the display
18:46:22 <stoney> Ok... I'll start there
18:46:51 <stoney> #topic
18:46:57 <LoganH> If you look at that pdf i uploaded to the docs, the Blue box is the mouse/pointer update, and the green box is the display frame update
18:46:57 <stoney> #topic employmenet
18:47:17 <stoney> ok I'll look at that more closely too.. thanks
18:47:24 <LoganH> Your welcome..
18:47:33 <LoganH> But I need to run to my next meeting
18:47:34 <stoney> heidi: who is on the grant payroll after this week?
18:47:46 <stoney> bye!
18:47:53 <stoney> (to LoganH :))
18:47:54 <heidi> No noe.
18:48:01 <stoney> OK
18:48:06 <heidi> We will need to restart folks.
18:48:23 <LoganH> I will leave my chat open so I can read this after.
18:48:24 <heidi> We also have a transfer IT student who is interested in working on the project.
18:48:41 <stoney> OK
18:49:00 <stoney> Are you still planning to use MouseTrap in Software Engineering?
18:49:40 <heidi> Ues
18:49:43 <heidi> Can't type today!
18:49:59 <stoney> OK
18:50:20 <stoney> How soon do you think you'll be using it?
18:50:47 <joanie> on a related note, does anyone have any ideas how close/far we are to being ready to start working on an upstream branch?
18:51:34 <stoney> i agree... that's related... but I'm not sure how close it is to working until I try some more ....
18:51:35 <heidi> That would be either Stoney or LoganH. They're closest to the code
18:51:56 <joanie> ok
18:51:56 <stoney> at the moment, it feels like a bottomless pitt to me
18:52:02 <joanie> uh oh
18:52:22 <stoney> probably because I still don't have a great handle on it...
18:52:38 <stoney> when I hammered on it before, I got it to a similar point that LoganH has
18:52:43 <joanie> is LoganH planning on staying on?
18:52:49 <stoney> and that's where I got stuck
18:52:59 <stoney> but I haven't hammered on it since
18:53:09 <stoney> last week I've mostly been trying to integrate
18:53:30 <stoney> joanie: I think ambers documentation might be good for upstream
18:53:43 <joanie> cool
18:53:58 <joanie> and by upstream I don't mean "in master"; I just mean in a development branch upstream
18:54:21 <heidi> LoganH will be taking the Software Engineering course in the fall
18:54:50 <heidi> So we'll have about six students working on MouseTrap, but also focusing on stuff othere than code.
18:55:01 <stoney> personally, I think all of this should be in a development branch upstream
18:55:39 <stoney> but then I can't say I undertand what qualifies for inclusion in a development upstream
18:56:50 <stoney> heidi:  sounds good
18:56:56 <heidi> Yes.
18:57:17 <stoney> is there a reason not to include what has been done into a development branch upstream (gnome repo)
18:57:18 <stoney> ?
18:57:54 <joanie> not in my mind
18:57:59 <amber> i think it might be good, so others can see progress is being made
18:58:10 <stoney> ditto...
18:58:14 <stoney> we have progress
18:58:17 <stoney> but we're stuck
18:58:26 <stoney> (aren't we always :) )
18:58:29 <joanie> are we stuck?
18:58:49 <amber> but it will show that its compatible with newer versions of dependencies
18:59:17 <amber> maybe we should schedule a mousetrap code day again?
18:59:21 <stoney> stuck = were I left it since last I worked on it... != can't fix
18:59:59 <stoney> maybe I'm using the wrong word
19:00:00 <stoney> :)
19:00:02 <joanie> :)
19:00:13 <joanie> If the students are not stuck, then we are not stuck
19:00:44 <stoney> Let me put it another way... I think we are at a problem that we don't totally understand... yet
19:01:29 <stoney> Anyone got anything else on their mind?
19:01:59 <joanie> do we have any action items towards the single, upstream "gnome3" (or whatever) branch?
19:02:29 <stoney> (i knew there was something I was forgetting :) ... need food)
19:02:53 <stoney> heidi: how do you want to do this?
19:03:00 <joanie> if we have a single, integrated branch somewhere, then heidi and I can work on the upstreaming bit
19:03:12 <stoney> OK.
19:03:14 <stoney> i c
19:03:23 <stoney> so i'll finish integrating into logan_test
19:03:32 <stoney> then that can be upstreamed?
19:03:40 <stoney> what do I do once I've got that?
19:03:40 <pnutzh4x0r> so i see we are moving to gtk3, are we still using python2?
19:03:46 <heidi> Yes, I agree with Joannie (single integrated branch)
19:04:28 <stoney> (heidi Yes and I would like to start following a gitflow workflow... but that's for a future discussion)
19:04:31 <joanie> once we have the new branch, we can generate the patches between it and master. potentially squashing at least some of them. And then we can branch upstream and apply those patches
19:04:51 <joanie> we can also make a new "version" in bugzilla
19:04:54 <stoney> pnutzh4x0r: yes to gtk3... I don't remember were we are on python at the moment ... but I think python3)
19:05:09 <amber> fed 19 is python 2.7
19:05:20 <stoney> is it running there?
19:05:21 <joanie> I thought we were sticking with python2, but doing much of the changes that are compatible with both
19:05:22 <stoney> amber?
19:05:30 <joanie> f19's default is
19:05:37 <amber> i havent gotten the latest logan branch down yet
19:05:38 <joanie> but it also has 3.3.x
19:05:40 * joanie looks
19:05:55 <joanie> 3.3.2
19:06:35 <stoney> \me caugt up
19:06:38 <stoney> ok
19:06:49 <pnutzh4x0r> ok, so i dont need to look into opencv and python3
19:06:54 <stoney> #agreed stoney integrates into logan_test
19:07:18 <stoney> I think we still want python3... ultimately... true?
19:07:26 <amber> yes
19:07:27 <joanie> pnutzh4x0r: well....
19:07:33 <joanie> we still need python3
19:07:35 <stoney> or is that pushed to MouseTrap4.0 or something
19:07:36 <joanie> but I think we're blocked
19:07:39 <pnutzh4x0r> ok, then i ll still look into it :]
19:07:42 <joanie> :)
19:07:44 <joanie> thanks pnutzh4x0r
19:07:54 <stoney> on that toipic...
19:08:00 <joanie> but we can make progress towards python3
19:08:10 <joanie> I forget who said they'd do that though
19:08:19 <joanie> I remember volunteering to help whoever it was
19:08:23 <stoney> I swear opencv on github has python3 updates
19:08:30 <stoney> i just haven't tried it to confirm
19:08:38 <pnutzh4x0r> yes, i think they do, i just have to confirm
19:08:44 <stoney> right...
19:08:58 <stoney> which i think requires compiling opencv manually right?
19:09:15 <pnutzh4x0r> yes, building it from source
19:09:31 <pnutzh4x0r> which was tricky last time i tried...
19:09:38 <pnutzh4x0r> but hopefully will be fine
19:09:40 <stoney> so that's the trick
19:09:50 <stoney> so if you get that working... then what?
19:10:00 <joanie> start using it :)
19:10:04 <heidi> :-) Right
19:10:12 <joanie> and bump the dependency
19:10:18 <pnutzh4x0r> then that means we can write mousetrap in python3 and have access to opencv
19:10:31 <stoney> we create a new branch to work against python3 while we wait for the new opencv in the distrobution stream?
19:11:02 <joanie> it can go into the to-be-created development branch upstream
19:11:03 <stoney> but the opencv in distro is old... how will that wok
19:11:13 <stoney> I see
19:11:18 <joanie> how it works is this:
19:11:25 <joanie> 1. There needs to be a need for the new version
19:11:33 <joanie> 2. There needs to be a stable release of the new version
19:11:45 <joanie> 3. You start filing bugs against distros to start packaging the new version
19:12:06 <stoney> (new version of opencv?)
19:12:10 <joanie> correct
19:12:16 <stoney> OK
19:12:19 <joanie> i.e. they need to do a python3 release
19:12:32 <joanie> then packages that use opencv will start migrating towards it
19:12:40 <joanie> for the python3 goodness, new features, whatever
19:12:46 <joanie> mousetrap will be one of those packages
19:13:02 <joanie> as software people use depends on that new version of opencv....
19:13:16 <joanie> the distros will be motivated to package the new version of opencv
19:13:29 <joanie> because building everything from source does not appeal to most users
19:13:41 <stoney> so maybe we need two development branches upstream... one for GTK3+python2+ocv2... and one for GTK3+python3+ocvX ?
19:13:56 <joanie> depends
19:14:00 <joanie> if it were me
19:14:06 <joanie> I'd start with the first
19:14:19 <stoney> first = one for GTK3+python2+ocv2 ?
19:14:27 <joanie> then I'd update it with all the changes needed for python3 ***which are compatible with 2.7***
19:14:33 <joanie> correct re first one
19:14:51 <stoney> OK... so pnutzh4x0r is in the experimental category here
19:14:56 <joanie> there's a bunch of changes needed for 3.x that are compatible with 2.7
19:15:09 <joanie> since they work with both, do those first
19:15:15 <joanie> then you reasses
19:15:17 <joanie> s
19:15:23 <stoney> OK
19:15:31 <stoney> so do we have a plan?
19:15:35 <joanie> I think so
19:15:48 <joanie> who is doing the python3 (but 2.7 compatible) changes?
19:15:53 <heidi> Ummm, lets put this in the official notes using #info
19:16:11 <stoney> at the moment... I don't think anyone is
19:16:25 <stoney> heidi: which part :)
19:16:26 <stoney> ?
19:16:34 <joanie> all of it stoney :)
19:16:55 <heidi> :-) Yes right.
19:16:57 * stoney looks boggled
19:17:32 <stoney> #info create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python3+ocv2
19:17:44 <heidi> Umm, likely #action?
19:17:56 <stoney> #action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python3+ocv2
19:18:17 <stoney> #action stoney integrate into logan_test which will become that upstream
19:18:37 <heidi> #action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python2+ocv2
19:18:46 <stoney> #action pnutzh4x0r will try to confirm that the changes to opencv in github work with python3
19:18:55 <stoney> oop
19:18:57 <stoney> oops
19:19:25 <stoney> irc://irc.gnome.org/#action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python2+ocv2 (not GTK3+python3+ocv2... that was a typo)
19:19:36 <stoney> what the heck
19:19:49 <stoney> irc://irc.gnome.org/#action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python2+ocv2 (not GTK3+python3+ocv2... that was a typo)
19:19:56 <stoney> what is with taht irc junk?
19:20:33 <heidi> #action create upstream branch for GTK3+python3+ocvX
19:20:42 <stoney> #action make as many python3 changes that are compatible with python2.7 as possible
19:20:58 <stoney> heidi: but not now... right?
19:21:11 <heidi> #action joanie will update the GTK3+python2+ocv2 version with all the changes needed for python3
19:21:17 <heidi> Yes, right not now.
19:21:25 <stoney> ok
19:21:30 <stoney> did we get it all?
19:21:31 <heidi> My apologies. I'm not fully up to date on development.
19:21:33 <joanie> I thought I was merely guiding students, but ok
19:21:43 <joanie> python3 migration is pretty easy
19:21:45 <heidi> Oh, sorry, I pulled that from earlier in the IRC.
19:21:57 <joanie> i don't mind
19:22:03 <heidi> #action Joanie will help students as needed in the conversion from python 2.7 to 3.
19:22:07 <heidi> better :-)
19:22:10 <joanie> I think so
19:22:14 <stoney> heidi: can that be part of what students do in software engineering?
19:22:17 <heidi> Yes, right.
19:22:31 <stoney> cool
19:22:36 <heidi> My next comment was that Stoney and I need to sit down and figure out a plan for the SE students.
19:22:41 <heidi> Stoney, are you in this week?
19:22:51 <stoney> OK... anything else (my daughter is gnawing my leg)
19:23:04 <heidi> Ah, go. We can coordinate later.
19:23:06 <LoganH> I'm back now
19:23:06 <stoney> I can't
19:23:13 <heidi> Joanie, as always, thank you so much.
19:23:14 <stoney> because I'm rachel's shuttle this week
19:23:18 <heidi> Oh, right! ballet. :-)
19:23:28 <stoney> pink pink pink pink :)
19:23:31 <heidi> OK, I'll figure something out.
19:23:33 <heidi> Right! :-)
19:23:39 <stoney> we can skype
19:23:50 <heidi> Yes, good idea.
19:23:51 <stoney> this afternoon even
19:23:54 <stoney> got time?
19:24:08 <stoney> (I need 1 hour right now to feed the ankle biter)
19:24:10 <heidi> I'm back to the dentist this afternoon.
19:24:12 <heidi> :-)
19:24:16 <heidi> I'm pretty free all day tomorrow.
19:24:22 * stoney checking
19:24:41 <stoney> how about right after the openfe skype?
19:25:00 <heidi> Umm, the OpenFE skype is on Weds.... But I could do it at 10 if that works.
19:25:04 <heidi> :-)
19:25:10 <stoney> I keep getting that confused
19:25:19 <stoney> Yes 10, that works :)
19:25:26 <heidi> OK, I'll skype you then.
19:25:26 <stoney> it's in my calendar
19:25:30 <stoney> are we done?
19:25:31 <heidi> Good!
19:25:45 <heidi> I think so.
19:26:04 <amber> :)
19:26:13 <heidi> joannie, any hints on what my connection issue with irc.gnome.org might be?
19:26:22 <stoney> Ok... i'll assume we are meeting again next week same time... if this doesn't work for anyone please send email.
19:26:33 <stoney> Thanks all for being here
19:26:34 <stoney> !
19:26:34 <heidi> Works on my old machine but not new so must be a machine setting.
19:26:35 <joanie> heidi: 'fraid I don't without seeing more concrete error messages
19:26:45 <stoney> #endmeeting